IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS (SEP 2-8, 2024)

Supreme Court stays order of the Gujarat High Court which directed fresh apology from newspapers for wrong court reporting

The Gujarat High Court declared that the newspaper’s August 23 apology was not displayed in bold or in a conspicuous manner. A Gujarat High Court judgment demanding a new apology from the Times of India (ToI), Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar for inaccurately reporting court proceedings was stayed by the Supreme Court.

Read order here.

Delhi High Court restrains use of the word ‘Aashiqui’ in movie titles

An interim injunction prohibiting Super Cassettes Industries, often known as T-Series, from releasing any films using the titles “Tu Hi Aashiqui,” “Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai,” or any other name incorporating the phrase “Aashiqui” has been issued by the Delhi High Court. The co-producers of the first “Aashiqui” movies, Vishesh Films, submitted a plea to preserve the popular movie series, and it was granted.

Read order here

Delhi High Court bars ‘Taj Iconic’ from using the Taj trademark in a trademark infringement suit

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Indian Hotels Company, which owns the Taj hotel chain, in a trademark infringement claim filed against a man operating a service called “Taj Iconic Membership.” Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favor of the Taj group, awarding Rs. 10 lakh in damages and Rs. 5 lakh in costs, and dismissed the suit against the individual, Manoj.

In October 2022, Taj was granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, preventing him from using the mark “TAJ” in his business name or domain name.

The Indian Hotel Company was able to establish its goodwill and reputation in the mark “Taj,” the court concluded in its decision to decree the suit. It further stated that the man had utilized other content and images, including Taj’s marks, without permission.

Allahabad High Court rules that poker and rummy are games of skill

The Allahabad High Court made a major verdict when it decided that rummy and poker are skill-based games rather than gambling. A division bench made up of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjeev Shukla rendered the decision on Wednesday in response to a petition filed by DM Gaming Private Limited, which had contested an earlier ruling from the Agra City Commissionerate that had prohibited the business from running rummy and poker as a gaming establishment.

In order to overturn the order that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Commissionerate of Agra, had issued on January 24, 2024, denying the company license to run poker and rummy as a gaming unit, DM Gaming Private Limited has filed a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Read order here.

Bombay High Court refuses the Zee Studios prayer seeking immediate release of censor certificate of the movie ‘Emergency’

Co-producers of the upcoming Kangana Ranaut movie “Emergency,” Zee Studios, has filed a plea with the Bombay High Court requesting an authentic copy of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification for the movie. Zee has stated that CBFC has not yet sent a formal copy of the certification, even though they were notified of the movie’s certification on August 29.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was not ordered by the Bombay High Court to provide the censor certificate for the Kangana Ranaut movie “Emergency”. But the Court made it clear that it was not answering the producers’ plea, and it instructed the CBFC to conclude reviewing the criticism of the movie by September 18.

Read order here

CBFC tells Madhya Pradesh High Court that it is considering all objections before giving a clearance to the movie ‘Emergency’

The CBFC informed the court that the film is still being reviewed and that any concerns will be taken into account before the film is approved. The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to issue an order preventing the distribution of performer Kangana Ranaut’s upcoming film, “Emergency,” which was originally scheduled for last Friday.

OYO and guest house directed to pay over Rs. 16 lakhs for dashing customer’s NLU dream

OYO creator Ritesh Agarwal and a guest home in Chennai have been ordered by a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, to pay over Rs16 Lakh in compensation to a man who was not given a room despite making an advance online reservation. But the hotel he had reserved online did not recognize the internet reservation, and even the other hotel that OYO had planned did not provide them a room.

This compelled him to make a reservation at the guest home, where he encountered additional difficulties and had to pay more money than what he had originally paid online. Because of all of this, the complainant claimed that his sister fared poorly on the test and had to reapply in order to get admitted to National Law University (NLU).

Netflix India revises disclaimer in the IC 814 web-series to show real names of hijackers

Netflix’s latest series, IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack, which is inspired on the 1999 hijacking of the Indian aircraft IC 814 by five terrorists, is making waves. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting summoned Netflix content chief Monika Shergill after social media users accused the web series’ creators of purposefully changing the hijackers’ names to “Bhola” and “Shankar”.

In Anubhav Sinha’s film, the five hijackers of the Delhi-bound flight from Kathmandu are referred to as Chief, Doctor, Burger, Bhola, and Shankar. In reality, it is consistent with the inquiry reports and the book Flight into Fear: The Captain’s Story, published by Srinjoy Chowdhury and the flight’s captain, Devi Sharan. However, some members of the media believed that naming the hijackers was inappropriate and misrepresented the facts.

The disclaimer for “IC814: The Kandahar Hijack” was updated following a meeting between the information and broadcasting secretary and Netflix India’s vice president of content. The opening disclaimer for Netflix India’s new series “IC814: The Kandahar Hijack,” which has generated controversy due to how the hijackers’ code names were portrayed, has been altered, the company revealed. “To assist viewers unfamiliar with the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814, we have updated the opening disclaimer to include both the actual and code names of the hijackers,” stated Netflix India vice president of content Monika Shergill.

PIL filed in the Delhi High Court seeking ban on public viewing of Netflix’s series IC814 – The Kandahar Hijack withdrawn pursuant to the revision of its disclaimer

The Hindu Sena president filed a petition requesting that the Maharashtra and central governments forbid the people from watching the series. It further claims that the OTT series IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack misrepresents the true names of the hijackers, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Delhi High Court asking for the show to be banned. The plea claimed that the miniseries injured the feelings of the Hindu community by incorrectly portraying the genuine hijackers as having Hindu names, such as “Bhola” and “Shankar,” which are alternative names for Lord Shiva.

The Delhi High Court’s PIL asking for an order banning Netflix’s series “IC 814 The Kandahar Hijack” has been withdrawn. Through legal representation, the petitioner claimed that Netflix’s inclusion of a disclaimer resolves the issues presented in the PIL and makes clear the identities of the terrorists who were actually responsible for the hijacking.

Bombay High Court grants interim relief to HUL in suit filed over Ensure ad disparaging Horlicks

The Bombay High Court  granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), owner of Horlicks, in a suit alleging that Abbott Laboratories unfairly disparaged its product in an advertisement for Ensure Diabetes Care. While temporarily injuncting Abbott from slandering the Horlicks Diabetes Plus drink, Justice RI Chagla said, “Unless reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm/injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.” The Court found that the advertisement prima facie denigrates and disparages HUL’s product, and that Abbott had not acted on HUL’s request to withdraw the advertisement.

Read order here.