<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (4) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233387</link>
    <description>A compulsory copyright licence was held terminable where the licensee failed to furnish and periodically revise the bank guarantee tied to quarterly compensation liability, and any alleged informal understanding could not override the express licence terms. On that basis, continued broadcasting after termination would amount prima facie to copyright infringement, and the court declined to allow use of the repertoire merely on a monetary deposit because that would effectively create an interim compulsory licence. Protection of the copyright holder&#039;s rights prevailed, while the licensee was left to pursue remedies under the statutory framework separately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233387</link>
      <description>A compulsory copyright licence was held terminable where the licensee failed to furnish and periodically revise the bank guarantee tied to quarterly compensation liability, and any alleged informal understanding could not override the express licence terms. On that basis, continued broadcasting after termination would amount prima facie to copyright infringement, and the court declined to allow use of the repertoire merely on a monetary deposit because that would effectively create an interim compulsory licence. Protection of the copyright holder&#039;s rights prevailed, while the licensee was left to pursue remedies under the statutory framework separately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>