Unhappy Directors plan to take legal action against the Federation of Cine Technicians & Workers of Eastern India.
This week, news broke out that the Directors’ Association of Eastern India (DAEI) has decided to take legal action against the Federation of Cine Technicians & Workers of Eastern for allegedly unconstitutional activities. The directors expressed anguish that a committee formed following an impasse between the two sides in July to suggest reforms in the existing guidelines did not have a single meeting. However, it was supposed to submit its report in November. In their 15-pointer grievances (as this report says), the directors cited grievances such as forced crew recruitments, delayed membership approvals, and unauthorized shooting schedule changes. The background context is that a dispute over Rahul Mukherjee’s Durga Puja film escalated tensions, prompting intervention by CM Mamata Banerjee. A committee comprising industry figures was tasked with resolving issues, but no notification has been issued despite reminders. For more, see here. On the issue of directors’ rights, I wrote something about it with Akshat here.
Madras HC seeks reply on the Tamil film producers please to ban on movie reviews for three days from the date of release
The Madras High Court has issued notices to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Tamil Nadu IT and Digital Services Department, and platforms like YouTube and Google LLC, seeking responses to a petition filed by the Tamil Film Active Producers Association. The petition demands a ban on digital reviews of newly released movies during the first three days of release, citing their impact on box office performance. The petitioners claim that negative reviews, often motivated by business rivalries, damage a film’s reputation and influence audience perception. They also allege that some YouTube channels use derogatory language in reviews to boost views, affecting the films’ future sales to OTT and television platforms. Justice S. Sounthar refused to impose an interim ban, asserting that film criticism is a form of freedom of speech and expression protected under the Constitution. The court stated that “Reviewers are entitled to review any film; it is their opinion.” See here for more. … Honestly, all I can think now is, (a meme) “Kuch Bhi!”
Levitating x Woh Ladki Jo Mashup Sparks Controversy Over Song Credit
These days, those of you who have enjoyed the Dua Lipa concert held in Mumbai might remember this heart-throbbing Levitating x Woh Ladki Jo mashup (‘Tis fun, right?). Well, not for everyone. While this fusion drew cheers from the audience, it also sparked controversy. Singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya, the original voice behind Woh Ladki Jo, criticized Dua Lipa for crediting Shah Rukh Khan during the mashup, seemingly sidelining his own contribution. Taking to Instagram, Singer’s son also expressed frustration over media outlets and social media users failing to recognize his father’s role in creating the iconic song despite the performance’s buzz. This incident raises an intriguing legal and ethical question: does such a mashup infringe on the original singer’s rights under copyright law? Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 grants authors and performers moral rights. A question arises: Could Abhijeet successfully invoke these rights in this context? This is a nuanced issue, contingent on how the mashup is perceived—tribute or violation? We covered the issue of mashup and moral rights here.
Bombay HC Restrains Pune Joint from Using ‘Burger King’ Name
The Bombay High Court has restrained a Pune-based eatery from using the name “Burger King,” pending the resolution of an appeal by the U.S.-based multinational, alleging trademark infringement. The court emphasized that the “Burger King” trademark is “‘well known all over the world’” and registered in India since 1979. It found the Pune joint’s claim of prior use since 1992 as “perverse,” given the U.S. firm’s prior registrations in 1954 (internationally) and 1979 (India). This ruling means that the Pune eatery cannot use the name “Burger King” for now, as the Bombay High Court has stayed the effect of the previous order by the Pune court, which had dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by the US-based firm. See more here.
Mochi vs desiMochi: Mochi Wins
The Bombay High Court recently ruled in favor of Metro Shoes in a trademark dispute against Nice Shoes LLP over the use of the name “Mochi.” Metro, using the “Mochi” brand since 1977, argued that Nice Shoes’ “Desimochi” brand caused consumer confusion and damaged its reputation. The court recognized “Mochi” as a well-known trademark and held that adding “Desi” did not differentiate the marks, creating deceptive similarity. The court rejected Nice Shoes’ defense that “Mochi” is a generic term for cobblers, emphasizing overall consumer impression in trademark infringement. It also clarified that bad faith isn’t required to prove infringement under Indian law. See here for more.
Mahindra Rebrands EV Amid Trademark Dispute with IndiGo Over ‘6e’
Mahindra & Mahindra announced it would rename its SUV BE 6e to BE 6, amid a legal dispute with aviation giant IndiGo over trademark rights. IndiGo claims ownership of the term “6E,” used in its flight operations and argues that Mahindra’s use of “6e” in its EV branding infringes on this trademark. Mahindra countered that its BE 6e branding is distinct and poses no risk of confusion, criticizing the lawsuit’s timing and its broader implications. In a statement, the automaker argued that IndiGo’s claim could set a problematic precedent by monopolizing alphanumeric marks, impacting other companies. The controversy comes after Mahindra unveiled its electric SUVs in November, including the BE 6e and XEV 9e, priced at ₹18.9 lakh and ₹21.9 lakh, respectively. See here for more. While the issue seems settled, its worth pondering whether 6E can be registered as a mark under the law.
Mumbai Court Orders Probe into Alleged Financial Misconduct by Filmmaker Ali Abbas Zafar
A Mumbai court has ordered the police to file a cheating and forgery case against director Ali Abbas Zafar and his associates Himanshu Mehra and Ekesh Randive. The case, filed by producer Vashu Bhagnani, alleges that the trio submitted forged documents and inflated expenses during the production of Bade Miyan Chote Miyan. Bhagnani claims the accused misused funds and failed to provide proper financial accounts. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations, prompting a full investigation. The case includes charges of criminal conspiracy and fraud, with Bhagnani seeking justice for the alleged financial misconduct. (See here for more)
Delhi High Court to Hear PIL on AI Misuse of Artistic Works
A PIL has been filed in the Delhi High Court, Kanchan Nagar & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors, addressing the unauthorized use of original artistic works by AI software. The petition, filed by model Kanchan Nagar, photographer Vikas Saboo, and Images Bazaar (a company that owns stock photography website), seeks amendments to the Copyright Act and IT Rules to protect artists’ works from being exploited by AI platforms without consent. The petitioners argue that the use of AI-generated images without permission violates both copyright and personality rights, especially for freelance models. They also call for regulations to block unregulated platforms and punish AI-generated image sales. The case highlights concerns about privacy and consent, particularly the misuse of women’s images for commercial purposes. See more here. Separately, while not exactly connected, Akshat’s article on the issue of personality right is a relevant read on this issue.
IT Ministry Blocks 692 Betting, Gambling, and Gaming Apps from 2022 to 2024
From 2022 to 2024, the IT Ministry issued 692 blocking orders on betting, gambling, and gaming apps, as stated by minister of state for electronics and IT Jitin Prasada informed the Lok Sabha in a written response. These orders, under Section 69A, target apps deemed a threat to national security or public order. In 2023, 22 illegal betting apps were blocked, along with 138 others in February. Meanwhile, confusion over what constitutes legal real money games persists, as gambling laws are state subject not union. The IT Ministry’s 2023 amendments to allow permissible real money games are still pending, as no self-regulatory body has been approved. As of December 2023, the Ministry had blocked 581 apps, including 174 related to betting and gambling. See more for here.
ED Summons Raj Kundra for Questioning in Pornography Money Laundering Case
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned Raj Kundra, businessman and husband of actress Shilpa Shetty, for questioning in an ongoing money laundering investigation linked to the illegal distribution of pornographic films. Kundra has been asked to appear before the investigating officer on December 2 or later in the week, as reported by PTI. This case is connected to a four-year investigation, with the ED having raided Kundra’s properties in Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh in December 2022. See here for more.
Delhi High Court Stays ‘Jack Daniel’s’ Trademark Registration in India Amid Infringement Claims
The Delhi High Court has stayed the trademark registration of “Jack Daniel’s” for pharmaceutical and veterinary products, following a claim of infringement by Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. The court found merit in the allegation that the registration violated trademark laws, as it could mislead consumers and damage the brand’s goodwill. See here for more.
Telangana HC rejects plea against Pushpa 2 release
The Telangana High Court has denied a request to postpone the release of Pushpa-2: The Rule, despite a PIL challenging the hike in ticket prices. However, the court raised concerns about the impact of ticket costs on average families. The court agreed that the high ticket prices could deter ordinary people from attending the film and criticized the producers for scheduling benefit shows late into the night, citing potential health concerns. (See here for more)
