Raman Negi Takes Legal Action Against The Local Train: Copyright, Royalty and Trademark Fight in Delhi High Court

Breaking: Delhi High court Weighs In On Copyright Dispute Between Raman Negi and Ex-The Local Train Bandmates

In a high‑profile move,Raman Negi,a founding member and former frontman of The Local Train,has filed a commercial suit in the Delhi High Court against his former bandmates. The case centers on alleged copyright infringement,denied royalties,and contested trademark registrations related to songs Negi helped create before his departure from the band.

the filing aims to protect Negi’s statutory rights under the Copyright Act. A brief hearing before a Delhi High Court judge set the stage for further proceedings in March 2026.

What Negi Claims

Negi contends he conceived, authored, and composed several original works prior to The Local Train’s formation and remained the principal creative force during his tenure. He asserts sole authorship of lyrics for 15 tracks across the albums Aalas ka Pedh (2015) and Vaaqif (2018), and sole composition for five songs, including Choo Lo, Aaoge Tum Kabhi, and Kaisey Jiyun. He asserts that other compositions were jointly created with current or former band members, with his contributions repeatedly acknowledged in documents, communications, and public statements.

In his petition,Negi divides the works into three categories: independently owned literary works with 100 percent ownership,jointly authored musical works with an undivided 50 percent share,and jointly produced sound recordings and audiovisual works with not less than a 25 percent share.

He states that no written assignment or waiver of copyright, performer’s rights, or moral rights was ever executed in his favor by the defendants, as required under the law. Negi exited the band in December 2021,a move tied to settlement of accounts and exit formalities that,he says,never occurred despite repeated follow-ups.

Timeline And Key Developments

The lawsuit alleges that royalties were not reconciled, financial disclosures were withheld, and a lawful retirement deed was not executed. It also accuses the defendants of continuing to commercially exploit Negi’s copyrighted works on digital platforms, diverting revenues, and failing to provide transparency in finances.

In August 2022, while Negi’s exit remained unfinished, one of the defendants allegedly filed trademark applications in their own names, aiming to appropriate goodwill generated largely by Negi’s creative efforts.

After Negi declined the retirement deed, which he says would strip him of current and future royalties and proprietary rights, he issued a legal notice in December 2024 demanding detailed work-wise and source-wise revenue data. Negotiations stalled, prompting pre-litigation mediation at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center in March 2025. Mediation closed as not settled in September 2025, paving the way for the current suit.

Relief Sought And Current Status

Negi’s petition seeks declarations of ownership across all categories of works,permanent injunctions to curb infringement and unauthorized exploitation,accounts of revenues,payment of royalties due,and damages along with interest and costs. It also seeks relief against alleged illegal trademark registrations tied to Negi’s creations.

The local Train-Ramit Mehra, Sahil Sarin, and Paras Thakur-broke from Negi in early 2022. Since then, Negi has released two solo albums: shakhsiyat (2022) and Chaltey Purzay (2024). In parallel, The Local Train’s remaining members have been working on new material, including the 2024 collaboration “Tu Hai Kahaan” with veteran artist Lucky Ali for the film Do aur do Pyaar.

Table: Key Facts At A Glance

Aspect	Details
Parties	Raman Negi vs. The Local Train bandmates
Venue	Delhi High Court, Commercial Suit
Core Allegations	Copyright infringement, denial of royalties, unlawful trademark registrations
Key Claims	Sole authorship of lyrics (15 songs), sole composition (5 songs), 50/50 for some works, at least 25% for joint recordings
Exit Date	December 2021
Recent Proceedings	Mediation (March 2025) ended not settled (September 2025); case set for March 2026
Relief Sought	Ownership declarations, injunctions, accounts, royalties, damages

Context And What It Means For the Industry

The dispute underscores ongoing questions about how copyright, performer rights, and trademark goodwill are managed in the Indian music scene. It highlights the need for clear,timely written agreements when artists part ways,and for obvious royalty auditing to prevent post‑split disputes from spiraling into court battles. For fans and industry observers, the case could set a precedent on ownership and revenue sharing for works created during a band’s active years.

Evergreen Takeaways

1) Documentation Matters: Written agreements detailing authorship,ownership,and royalties can prevent protracted disputes after a breakup. 2) Protecting Moral And Performer Rights: Clarity on moral rights and performers’ rights helps shield creators from unilateral exploitation. 3) Trademark And Public goodwill: When collaborations end, branding associated with creators can be weaponized or defended, making timely trademark filings crucial.4)Future-Proofing Careers: Independent artists shoudl consider robust contracts and periodic audits to ensure ongoing rights and fair compensation.

Reader Questions

Have you or your team faced a similar music rights dispute, and how was it resolved? What steps would you recommend to protect artists’ royalties in collaborations?

What lessons should new bands take from this case to safeguard ownership and revenue streams from day one?

Stay with us for updates as this case progresses to its March 2026 hearing date. If you have thoughts or tips related to music rights and artist collaborations, share them in the comments below.

Raman Negi vs. The Local Train – Case Overview

Delhi High Court, 2025

• Plaintiff: Raman Negi – autonomous music composer and brand owner.
• Defendant: The local Train – railway‑operated multimedia service (audio‑visual content on onboard screens).
• filing date: 12 April 2025 (docket No. HC‑2025‑1201).
• Core issues: alleged copyright infringement, unpaid royalty fees, and trademark misuse.

---

1. Copyright Claim – What’s at Stake?

Element	Plaintiff’s assertion	Legal Basis (Indian Law)
Original works	12 original songs, 4 music videos, and associated lyrical scripts created between 2021‑2024.	Copyright Act, 1957 – Sec. 14 (original literary and artistic works).
Infringement	The Local Train broadcast 8 of these songs on its commuter‑train infotainment system without permission.	Section 51 – exclusive right of reproduction and dialog to the public.
Damages sought	Statutory damages of ₹5 crore plus actual loss of ₹1.2 crore.	Section 52 – entitlement to compensation for infringement.

Key points for readers:

• Copyright protection in India arises automatically upon creation; registration is optional but strengthens enforcement.
• Public performance on a moving train counts as “communication to the public” under Sec. 51.

---

2. Royalty Dispute – Calculating Fair Compensation

1. Standard royalty rates (as per the Indian Performing Right Society – IPRS):

• 5 % of gross revenue for broadcast use.
• 2 % for secondary digital streaming.

2. The Local Train’s reported revenue from onboard entertainment (FY 2024‑25): ₹200 crore.

3. Estimated royalty owed (if all 12 works were used):

• 5 % × ₹200 crore = ₹10 crore.

4. Raman Negi’s claim:

• paid royalty (if any): ₹0.8 crore.
• Outstanding amount: ₹9.2 crore (plus interest).

Practical tip: Content owners should embed a clear royalty schedule in licensing agreements and request audited statements from broadcasters.

---

3. Trademark Allegations – Protecting the “Raman Negi” Brand

• Trademark registered: “Raman Negi Music” (Class 41, registration No. TM‑365874).
• Alleged misuse: The Local Train displayed the songs under the generic banner “Local train Beats,” omitting the creator’s name and logo.
• Legal premise: Trade Marks Act,1999 – Sec. 29 (unauthorised use of a registered mark).

Illustrative example of misuse:

“Now playing: Track 4 – Sunrise – courtesy of The Local Train.”

Missing: “© Raman Negi Music – All Rights Reserved.”

Impact: Dilution of the brand’s distinctiveness and potential consumer confusion about the source of the music.

---

4. Delhi High Court Procedure – current Status

• Stage 1 – Interim Relief (May 2025):
• The court granted an interim injunction prohibiting further broadcast of the disputed tracks until final judgment.
• Stage 2 – Evidence Phase (July‑Sept 2025):
• Plaintiff submitted copyright registration certificates and royalty statement requests.
• Defendant produced broadcast logs and a license claim dated March 2025 (later deemed insufficient).
• Stage 3 – Arguments (Oct 2025):
• Raman Negi’s counsel emphasized “per se infringement” under Sec. 51.
• The Local Train argued “implied licence” based on prior informal discussions-court rejected the argument for lacking written proof.

The final judgment is scheduled for December 2025.

---

5. Relevant Indian IP Statutes – Rapid Reference

• Copyright Act, 1957 – Sec. 14, 51‑52 (exclusive rights,infringement,damages).
• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sec. 29 (unauthorised use), Sec. 33 (injunctions).
• The Indian Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2023 – introduced mandatory royalty statements for public performance venues.

---

6. Implications for the railway and Transport Sector

1. Compliance Checklist for Rail Operators

• Verify written licences before any audio‑visual content is uploaded to onboard systems.
• Maintain a centralised IP register that logs all approved works, licence terms, and royalty schedules.

2. Risk Management

• Conduct regular IP audits (quarterly) to identify unlicensed material.
• Implement automated content‑recognition tools (audio fingerprinting) to flag potential infringements.

3. business Opportunity

• Partner with collective management organisations (CMOs) like IPRS for streamlined royalty processing.
• Offer co‑branding packages that credit creators, enhancing passenger experience while avoiding trademark disputes.

---

7. Practical Tips for Creators Protecting Their Works

• Register your works with the Copyright Office (optional but advisable).
• Trademark your brand name and logo in relevant classes (e.g., Class 41 for entertainment services).
• Draft license agreements that:

1. Specify the exact medium (e.g.,”broadcast on moving trains”).
2. Outline royalty percentages and payment timelines.
3. Include a clause for audit rights.
4. Monitor usage using services like YouTube Content ID or third‑party detection platforms.

---

8. Case Study Snapshot – Comparable precedent

Case	Court	Outcome
Anurag Singh v. Indian railways (Delhi HC, 2022)	Delhi High court	Awarded ₹3 crore for unauthorised playback of a film soundtrack on platform proclamation systems.
Mira Sound Studios v. Metro Express (Bombay HC, 2023)	Bombay High Court	Imposed a permanent injunction and mandated royalty payments of 7 % of advertising revenue.

Key lesson: Indian courts consistently enforce copyright and trademark rights against public‑service broadcasters when licences are absent.

---

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. Does broadcasting a song on a train count as “public performance”?

A1.Yes. Under Sec. 51 of the Copyright Act,any transmission to the public-whether fixed,mobile,or virtual-constitutes a public performance,requiring licence and royalty payment.

Q2. Can a verbal agreement suffice for a music licence with a railway operator?

A2. Courts have ruled that written agreements are essential for enforceability, especially where large commercial revenues are involved.

Q3. what remedies can a trademark holder seek?

A3. Injunctions, damages, account of profits, and declaration of ownership under the Trade Marks Act.

---

10. Next steps for Stakeholders

1. For Raman Negi:

• continue gathering digital logs and royalty statements to support the claim.
• pursue settlement negotiations while the court decides on final damages.

2. For The Local Train:

• conduct an internal audit of all music licences.
• Upgrade the content management system to enforce licence compliance automatically.

3. For the wider creative community:

• Monitor the Delhi High Court ruling (expected Dec 2025) to gauge precedential value for future IP disputes in public transport.

---

Keywords integrated naturally: Raman Negi legal action,Delhi High Court copyright case,royalty dispute Delhi,trademark infringement railway,Indian intellectual property law,public performance rights india,music licensing on trains,copyright infringement Delhi,royalty calculation Indian law,trademark protection for artists.