Delhi HC restrains Aquakind labs from using ‘AQUAKIND’ trademark over Mankind pharma infringement
The Delhi High Court has prohibited Aquakind Labs from using “AQUAKIND” as a trade name or trademark, determining that it infringes upon Mankind Pharma’s “MANKIND” and “KIND” family of trademarks. The plaintiff argued that the goodwill and reputation built through its extensive use of the “Kind” family of trademarks lead the public to associate any pharmaceutical goods or services bearing the suffix “Kind” exclusively with the plaintiff. Mankind Pharma filed the suit against Aquakind Labs LLP, a pharmaceutical company. The court noted that Mankind has been using its “KIND” family of trademarks for over 30 years and holds multiple trademark registrations for “MANKIND” and other “KIND” trademarks. In granting the injunction, the court also took into account that “MANKIND” has been recognized as a well-known trademark, giving Mankind Pharma exclusive rights over the “MANKIND” and “KIND” formative trademarks and trade names.
OpenAI Beats Raw Story Copyright, Training Lawsuit
A New York federal judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit filed by Raw Story Media Inc. and Alternet Media Inc. against OpenAI Inc. over its chatbot training data, citing a lack of concrete injury necessary to proceed with the case.
Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that removing copyright management information, such as author names, from the plaintiffs’ articles for training AI tools—without distributing those works—doesn’t constitute the adverse effect required for legal standing. This decision was issued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Read decision here
Wikipedia under Centre’s scrutiny for complaints of biased and inaccurate information
The Indian government has expressed concerns to Wikipedia regarding alleged biases and inaccuracies in its content, raising the question of whether the platform should be classified as a publisher rather than an intermediary.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, in its communication, highlighted numerous complaints, pointing out that editorial control on Wikipedia seems to rest with a small group. Officials suggested this could undermine Wikipedia’s claim of being a neutral, volunteer-based platform, according to reports.
Justice Navin Chawla, overseeing the case, issued a stern warning: “I will impose contempt… It’s not about Defendant No. 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India,” he stated, adding that Wikipedia’s operations in India might be at risk if it continued to defy court orders. “We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia… You’ve made this argument before. If you don’t want to comply with Indian regulations, then don’t operate in India.”
The Madras High Court has said that there is no ban on doctors and hospitals to advertise in the media.
The High Court made this observation during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mangaiyarkarasi, who sought regulation of advertisements related to doctors and hospitals across newspapers, television, and other media platforms.
The petitioner argued, “Advertisements by doctors and hospitals are misleading the public. Exaggerated and false claims about medical treatments are creating unrealistic expectations. Therefore, media outlets should be prohibited from publishing ads that promote fake doctors, fraudulent drugs, medical treatments, and hospitals.”
A bench consisting of Chief Justice KR Sriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy heard the petition. During the hearing, the doctors questioned, “Is it unreasonable to expect the media to verify every hospital-related advertisement before publishing?” The doctors further argued that only the Medical Commission has the authority to take action against doctors and hospitals violating regulations. The judges advised that the petitioner could file a complaint with the Medical Commission regarding such issues, and if advertisements from fake hospitals or doctors are identified, a complaint could also be filed with the police.
Bombay High Court to hear a plea seeking a stay on the release of the controversial film “Match Fixing – The Nation Is At Stake”
The Bombay High Court is expected to hear a petition seeking a stay on the release of the controversial film *Match Fixing – The Nation Is At Stake*, which is based on the 2008 Malegaon Blast case. The petition argues that the film perpetuates harmful stereotypes against Muslims. The petitioner seeks an injunction on the film’s release, claiming that the trailer includes “baseless and false” portrayals of Muslims as perpetrators of violence, which could incite hatred and promote negative sentiments against the community.
Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging U/A certification given to Malayalam movie ‘Pani’
The Kerala High Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the U/A certification granted to the Malayalam movie ‘Pani’, directed by and starring Joju George.
The petitioner argued that the U/A certification (which allows unrestricted public exhibition with parental guidance) was inappropriate, claiming that the film contains obscene dialogues, scenes, and violent content, making it unsuitable for children. *Pani*, which was released on October 24, is currently screening in theaters.
Madras High Court directs Telegram to delete channels impersonating PhonePe
In an interim order dated October 30, the Madras High Court directed Telegram to block and delete channels and chatbots impersonating the fintech app PhonePe. This directive followed a lawsuit filed by PhonePe, which alleged that fraudulent channels on Telegram were redirecting funds intended for PhonePe to scammers, causing financial losses.
PhonePe’s lawsuit highlighted the risks posed by these impersonating channels to both the company and its users. Telegram acknowledged the difficulty in identifying and blocking such channels early in their activity but assured that it would take immediate action if PhonePe flagged the fraudulent accounts.
Read order here.
Delhi HC Issues Injunction Against Counterfeit Skechers Products
The Delhi High Court recently issued an ex parte interim injunction to protect the trademarks and copyrights of Skechers South Asia. Skechers filed the suit, alleging that Delhi Polymer, Subhash Footwear, and Gaurav Footwear were manufacturing and selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers’ trademark and designs.
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, noted the strong prima facie evidence presented by Skechers, including detailed reports and photographs of the alleged counterfeit goods found during investigations. The court acknowledged the potential for consumer confusion and the risk to Skechers’ brand reputation.
The court granted several reliefs to Skechers, including – an order restraining the defendants from using Skechers’ trademarks or any similar imitations on their products. Appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants’ premises, seize counterfeit goods, and secure relevant business records. A directive for the defendants to disclose all entities involved in the production and distribution of these counterfeit items.
Read order here.
A federal appeals court says Live Nation and Ticketmaster must face a class action claiming they charged “extraordinarily high” prices to thousands of ticket buyers
A federal appeals court has ruled that Live Nation and Ticketmaster must face a class action lawsuit alleging they charged “extraordinarily high” prices to thousands of ticket buyers. The court determined that the concert giants cannot use “opaque and unfair” user agreements to dismiss the lawsuit.
Live Nation argued that fans had waived their right to sue in court by agreeing to private arbitration when they purchased tickets, as is commonly required for event tickets and other services. However, the court found these user agreements insufficiently transparent, allowing the class action to proceed.
Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO and Concord Music Group have filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution company TuneCore, accusing them of “massive ongoing infringements” of their sound recordings
Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO, and Concord Music Group have filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution platform TuneCore, alleging extensive and ongoing infringements on their sound recordings. The lawsuit claims that Believe has allowed fraudulent “artists” and pirate labels to distribute unauthorized copies of recordings by major artists, including Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, ABBA, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, DJ Snake, Aqua, and others.
Filed in Manhattan federal court on November 4 by attorneys Andrew Bart and Gianni Servodidio of Jenner & Block, the complaint accuses Believe of distributing these counterfeit recordings to streaming platforms and social media sites, causing significant financial harm. The plaintiffs are seeking at least $500 million in damages.
JGLS Student and Lawyer Kaustubh Shakkarwar Sues University Over Exam Failure Linked to Alleged AI Use.
Kaustubh Shakkarwar, a lawyer and student at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), has filed a lawsuit against the university, challenging his failure in an exam due to alleged use of AI in his submission. Shakkarwar’s petition contends that the university unfairly penalized him based on suspicions of AI involvement in his work. Kaustubh Shakkarwar, a lawyer and student at Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), has filed a lawsuit against the university after being failed in an exam due to alleged AI use in his submission, as detected by the AI tool Turnitin. In the legal filing, Shakkarwar’s team denied any AI involvement in his work, asserting that the university had no explicit policy prohibiting AI use.
The legal brief describes an email from the university’s “Unfair Means Committee” stating simply that his submission was “88% AI-generated,” accompanied by a PDF with no additional reasoning or detailed allegations. The filing further challenges the assumption that AI use constitutes plagiarism, especially given the lack of clear guidelines from the institution on this matter.
CEO of IOAA states that ASCI regulations are not enough to curb betting advertisements
Praveen Vadhera, CEO of the Indian Outdoor Advertising Association (IOAA), highlighted challenges faced by the out-of-home (OOH) advertising sector, especially regarding regulatory compliance. He noted that the industry has increasingly expanded its digital presence, adopting innovative methods to navigate regulations imposed by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) and international bodies. Vadhera expressed concern that existing ASCI regulations are effective primarily for television, and he advocated for a more robust intervention from the government. According to him, regulatory measures must extend beyond ASCI to address the broader regulatory needs of digital and OOH advertising sectors.
Madhya Pradesh High Court bans sharing livestream videos of court proceedings on social media
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has implemented a ban on editing or altering livestream footage of its court proceedings. This decision prohibits the trimming and uploading of modified versions of these livestreams on the internet, aiming to preserve the integrity and context of the court’s proceedings as originally broadcast. The court’s move likely seeks to prevent misrepresentation or selective dissemination of court sessions.
Lego wins trademark battle in Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently revoked the trademark registration of a Hyderabad-based confectionery company after finding it to be deceptively similar to the renowned toy company, Lego. Justice P.B. Balaji ruled that the company had adopted a mark nearly identical to Lego’s, mimicking not only its style but also its color scheme. The company was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the close resemblance, leading the court to conclude that the company acted with dishonest intent to leverage Lego’s established brand identity. This decision underscores the court’s stance against trademark infringement and brand imitation.
Read order here
BharatBenz Conferred with ‘Well-Known Trademark’ Status
BharatBenz, a leading name in the Indian commercial vehicle market, has been officially granted the status of a ‘Well-Known Trademark’ by the Indian Government. This recognition, conferred by the Trade Marks Registry, acknowledges BharatBenz’s widespread brand presence and its significant influence in India’s expanding transportation industry. Achieving the status of a well-known trademark highlights the brand’s established reputation and ensures it enjoys stronger legal protection against potential infringement or misuse, further cementing its position in the competitive commercial vehicle sector.
Delhi High Court Protects Dream 11’s Trademark From Unknown Entities, Awards ₹1 Lakh Cost
The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction against unknown defendants who were found to be infringing on the registered trademarks of Dream11, the popular online fantasy sports league platform. The court restrained the defendants from using Dream11’s domain names or content on their websites. In its ruling, the court noted that the defendants had replicated not only the content but also the color scheme, look, and feel of Dream11’s website, including the use of the “Dream 11” trademarks. This clear imitation was deemed to indicate a malafide intent to mislead and take advantage of Sporta Technologies Pvt Ltd’s established brand identity.
Read order here.
The Bombay High Court recently held the trademark “Girnar”, a popular tea brand, as a “well-known trade mark” in India under the Trademarks Act.
The Bombay High Court recently recognized the trademark “Girnar,” a well-known tea brand, as a “well-known trademark” in India under the Trademarks Act. Justice Riyaz Chagla affirmed this recognition, stating that Girnar qualifies as a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court was hearing a case filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against TNI Plastics, where the company sought legal protection against trademark infringement. The ruling underscores the brand’s significant recognition and legal rights within India’s trademark framework.
Read order here
OpenAI Avoids Copyright Lawsuit Over News Article Usage
OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, has successfully avoided a copyright lawsuit regarding the alleged misuse of news articles to train its large language model. On November 7, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York dismissed the lawsuit filed by news outlets Raw Story and AlterNet. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of harm to support their claims. While dismissing the case, McMahon noted that the plaintiffs could potentially refile if new evidence emerges. She clarified that the central issue was not the exclusion of copyrighted materials but rather the use of the plaintiffs’ articles to develop ChatGPT without compensation. However, the court determined that the type of harm asserted by the plaintiffs did not justify the lawsuit.
Musician Nilanjana Ghosh Dastidar accuses T-Series and the music director duo Sachet-Parampara of copyright infringement for stealing her husband Rajarshi’s music without their permission.
The track in question, a 2018 piece titled U2 Style Guitar Backing Track in D Major by Rajarshi Mitter on YouTube, gained attention as listeners compared it side-by-side with the T-Series release, noting that the two tracks were identical. While T-Series has yet to make an official statement regarding the allegation, recent updates reveal that Rajarshi Mitter’s name has now been added to the arrangement credits for the song.
