IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS (JULY 25-31)

0
108

Complaint against Ranveer Singh for ‘Hurting Sentiments of Women’ With Nude Photoshoot

A complaint application is submitted at the Chembur police station by a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) person, stating that Ranveer Singh hurt the sentiments of women and insulted their modesty through his nude photographs, the official said. Further, it demanded the registration of a case under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Indian Penal Code. It is said that this photoshoot is a tribute to legendary actor Burt Reynolds, who was considered a sex symbol and an icon of American pop culture. (here)

Shilpa Shetty moves court in 2007 obscenity case (read here) – Concerning the 2007 obscenity case where Hollywood actor Richard Gere kissed Shetty’s cheeks, resulting in the public spark – the actress recently approached the court seeking dismissal of the appeal filed against her. She pleaded that the only allegation against her is that she didn’t protest when the incident happened which does not make her a conspirator.

Bombay High Court grants ad interim relief to producers of show ‘Criminal Justice’ in copyright infringement suit (here) – The Bombay High Court in Applause Entertainment Private Ltd. vs Krishna Anand granted ad interim relief to Plaintiff, the producers of web series ‘Criminal Justice’. The suit was filed when they came across a casting call for the web series made by one Anand, through an Instagram account. Consequently, a legal notice to him to delete posts and to cease and desist from using the plaintiff’s material.

‘Cadbury Gems’ vs ‘James Bond’ – Delhi High Court grants 16 lakh damages to Cadbury for trademark infringement (here) – The Court recently settled a more than 16 years old dispute wherein Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, (earlier formerly known as Cadbury India Limited) filed a suit alleging that infringement by Neeraj Food Products’ chocolate product named ‘James Bond’ with an identical color scheme, layout, and arrangement as that of its ‘Cadbury Gems’ or ‘Gems’ products. Favoring the plaintiff, the Court noted that “The ‘GEMS’ product is also usually consumed by small children, both in urban and rural areas. The test in such a matter is not that of absolute confusion. Even the likelihood of confusion is sufficient. A comparison of the defendant’s infringing product and the packaging thereof leaves no manner of doubt that the same is a complete knock-off, of the plaintiffs’ ‘CADBURY GEMS’,” (read Eashan Gosh’s analysis here).

‘No irreparable loss caused’: Delhi HC refuses India Today interim relief in a copyright case against Newslaundry – In defamation and copyright infringement against Newslaundry, the Court favored Newslaundry and refused to issue a direction to take down its videos which contain clips from India Today and Aaj Tak broadcasts. Relying on the Supreme Court decision on Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842, Justice Asha Menon noted that right to comment on content created on social media or TV channels is a facet of the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The order reads “…the right to free speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to the available means of publication, which, in the opinion of this Court, would also mean and include not only the electronic media and T.V. channels, but also the social-media platforms as the object of publication and broadcast is the same i.e., to reach out to the public.” (read here). In my opinion, the 56 pager judgment is worth reading and ponder upon to understand why IP or copyright is just an exception and the norm that should regulate every expressive activity.

India is at the top in nations blocking tweets by journalists, news outlets says Twitter transparency report (here) –  As per the latest transparency report, Twitter remarked that India submitted 114 demands between July to December 2021 to block tweets posted by verified accounts of scribes and news companies. Moreover, per Twitter, it received the second highest number of government legal requests for providing account information of users from India, after the U.S. Previously for January-June 2021 too, India topped this list by making 89 of the total 231 such demands.

Interception of WhatsApp calls on House panel radar (read here) – One of the points of discussion in the recent discussion of the Parliamentary panel on information technology was whether calls made via WhatsApp, supposedly called “end-to-end encrypted”, can be intercepted and covered under the Telegraph Act”. Currently, “the government has not provided any response so far and said it will respond later,” one anonymous person involved therein said. This can be problematic, as the panel also sought to know, if such (social media) platforms are planned to be brought under the Telegraph Act by the government.

Another challenge before Kerala High Court against OTT release of Kaduva (read here) Prithviraj-starrer Malayalam movie ‘Kaduva’ faces yet another challenge as a new petition before Kerala High Court alleges that the movie was released in theatres violating court orders. The HC has admitted the plea and issued notice to the respondents. Initially, the petitioner had launched a civil suit seeking a stay on the release of the film on grounds that the protagonist in the movie is a portrayal of him and that the story itself was an adaptation of his life. He had alleged that the movie contains embellishments and additions to real-life incidents, some of which are per se defamatory to him and his family members. Based on the observations of the CBFC, the High Court had directed that the name of the central character be modified from Kuruvachan. The new petition alleges that while the name of the character has been changed to Kuriyachan in the domestic prints, the overseas version still uses the name Kuruvachan and accordingly called for stay on the OTT release.

Celebs, influencers take legal opinion on claims as CCPA guidelines come into force Read more (here) – The new advertising guidelines by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) that came into effect last month can become a point of problem for endorsers, individuals, and influencers as to what they promote and endorse. Recently, Amitabha Bachhan also expressed his opinion on this saying “There are strict rules and regulations now by the GOI and the ASCI guidelines, I think that is who they are, who have now given ruling that, Influencers – a new terminology for them that put up product pictures with a mention or product pictures, to state that they are the sponsors, promotors, etc., or in partnership.. else it is becoming illegal .. so several posts of mine have been given notices that the change should be done … else .. …😟 ya .. !!”

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here