Bombay High Court allows release of Khuda Haafiz 2
As the producers agreed to the recommended changes by CFBC, the petition against the release of the film was disposed.
The changes to the film included deleting the word “Husain” from the film’s song replacing it with “junoon,” and also deleting the scene wherein the particular blade used for zanjeer-ka-matam, is portrayed in a negative light.
However, the scene of zanjeer-ka-matam was allowed remain as it is an event happening in the film’s background.
Relief to BookMyShow by Andhra Pradesh High Court
In its interim order, the High Court said that the petitioners have made out more than a prima facie case. The court also said that more significant harm would be caused to the petitioners if the interim order is not granted at this stage, as the private ticketing platforms like BookMyShow risk their agreements with third parties being affected, and theatre owners risk their licences being cancelled if they don’t migrate to the government portal by July 2, which was the last date earlier fixed by the state government.
The court observed in its interim order that while the ticket charges are fixed by the government, the service charges vary. While BookMyShow and theatre owners were charging their own service charges till now, with the new rules framed in the government order, an additional service charge of up to 2% has to be paid on the ticket to the government agency.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court issued an interim order stopping the state government from selling movie tickets online through a government-run platform until July 27, when the final hearing is expected.
Reports of government resurrecting section 66A of the IT Act through UN Convention route alarming
The Supreme Court had struck down Section 66A on March 24, 2015. Section 66A was introduced in 2008 and was widely misused by law enforcement agencies. There was a glaring ambiguity in terms such as “offensive” and “menacing in character”. These gave the agencies extraordinary powers to lodge cases and arrest anyone.
The Supreme Court order striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act had termed Section 66A “unconstitutionally vague”, and “struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2)”.
Reports are that India has forwarded its own “criminalisation of offensive messages” protocol to the UN, and has retained language of Section 66A. The very same language that was used to haul up anti-government activists, including cartoonists and students.
If essential features of the registered trademark are infringed, the difference in layout, packaging, etc is of no consequence
In a suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. the court held that in an action for infringement of a trademark once it is shown that essential features of the trademark are adopted by the defendant, the difference in layout, packaging, etc. would be of no consequence.
The court held that the mark RANBAXY LABORATORIES is visually, phonetically, structurally identical to the trademark RANBAXY and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED and the goods being pharmaceuticals products in class 5 are also identical.
The Court further held that a case for infringement of trademark under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is made out as the identity of the trademark and the goods and services covered under it are similar and the same is likely to cause confusion on the part of public.
The Court awarded Rs. 6,00,000/- as the Cost.
Delhi High Court: Distinctive elements in advertising campaigns can be protected under intellectual property laws (– Bright Lifecare Pvt Ltd vs Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd. & Anr)
The court held that the threshold for establishing distinctiveness would be quite high and unless and until there is enormous distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion or deception, the court would not grant injunction against a rival campaign because it may stultify creativity.
After considering the screenshots and viewing both advertisements, the court held that the two commercials are likely to give an ordinary viewer the impression that they are connected or emanating from the same source. The court further held that the similarity in theme and expression is quite prominent and palpable. The court directed Vini to pull down the two commercials from YouTube and other platforms.
It also clarified there is no restraint on Vini from using the words or expression ‘Zidd’ or ‘Ziddi’ in a manner which is not similar or identical to Bright’s and they are free to modify their ads to remove the objectionable frames and then re-launch them.
I&B ministry warns FM channels not to violate public interest announcement norms
As per an agreement signed by the FM radio broadcasting channels they are required to broadcast public interest announcements as may be required by central or state governments for a maximum of one hour per day at suitable time slots interspersed during that day.
The information and broadcasting ministry has warned FM radio stations of penalties if they violate the terms of the agreement to broadcast public interest announcements for a maximum of one hour per day.
Company booked under Copyright Act for using Disney characters in birthday products
Maharashtra Police booked two persons and a company located in Thane district for allegedly violating the Copyright Act by using Disney characters in birthday materials without permission. The case was registered based on a complaint lodged by an official of Disney Enterprises. The police conducted raids at godowns of the accused and seized materials worth over ₹1.81 lakh.
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in trouble for copyright infringement
An activist had called for action against Rahul Gandhi for a tweet that he posted which also had an attached video. The activist said that “I registered a complaint under Indian copyright and rules of Karnataka HC and as per it no one can share the video of HC without the permission of the HC and he used it”. The complaint is filed for tweeting the visuals of a hearing before the Karnataka High Court.
Whatsapp banned more than 19 lakh Indian accounts in May
As per the latest reports published by the messaging platform it banned over 19 lakh accounts basis complaints received via its grievance channel and through its own mechanism to prevent and detect violations.
8 week holdback between theatrical and OTT release to be reinstated from August 1, 2022
As per reports, from August 1, the gap between the theatre and OTT release is being widened from four weeks to eight weeks.
Lewis Black sues Pandora for $10 million over copyright infringement
Comedian Lewis Black filed suit against SiriusXM-owned audio streamer Pandora, arguing that the company ran recordings of his performances without obtaining the copyright to his written work. This suit, along with several others filed against Pandora, seeks back pay for millions of dollars worth of publishing royalties and to fundamentally change the way copyright for comedy functions.
Coca-Cola loses as court refuses to cancel US trademark of Thums Up
In a major setback for Coca-Cola, a federal appeals court in the US has ruled that the company’s sales of Thums Up and Limca in India and other countries did not justify cancelling another company’s US trademarks for soft drinks with the same name.
Coca-Cola does not sell the drinks widely in America and did not demonstrate any lost sales from Meenaxi’s products, the court said. Sales of the drinks by third-party importers also did not establish standing for the company under trademark law.
Photographer sues tattoo artist over copyright infringement
Von D, whose legal name is Katherine Von Drachenberg tattooed a likeness of an iconic photograph of jazz great Miles Davis onto a person. In 2021, the man who took the photograph, Jeffrey Sedlik, filed suit against Von D for copyright infringement, “Essentially he’s saying that the tattoo is substantially similar to his photograph of Miles Davis and therefore Kat Von D has committed copyright infringement,” said Aaron Moss, a copyright attorney in California.