As we welcome 2025, IPRMENTLAW proudly reflects on a year marked by significant strides in the realms of intellectual property rights and media law. Celebrating our seventh anniversary, we continue to evolve, driven by our commitment to deepening understanding and enhancing discourse in our field.
2024 stood out as a year where complex legal landscapes were navigated, and pivotal legal precedents were set. Our dedicated contributors (Akshat Agrawal, Angad Singh Makkar, Lokesh Vyas, Anusha Das, Sudarshan Mohta, Ujjawal Bhargava, Aviral Srivastava and Savan Dhameliya) have once again excelled, distilling complex topics into clear, insightful analyses that both inform and enrich our readers’ perspectives. This year, we have restructured our annual highlights to better categorize the diverse and significant developments we’ve observed:
- Legislative and Policy Top 10 Highlights – Key policy shifts and legislative updates.
- Copyright Top 10 Case Highlights – Major rulings and their implications.
- Trademark Top 10 Case Highlights – Significant decisions in trademark law.
- Privacy and Personality Rights Top 10 Highlights – Landmark judgments and evolving rights.
- Content Regulation Top 10 Highlights – Regulatory changes affecting media and content. In view of large number of critical cases in this segment, we have provided additional 15 highlights.
- Information Technology Top 10 Highlights – Developments in IT law affecting digital and cyber spaces.
- Artificial Intelligence– A new entry with interesting developments in global cases surrounding AI
- Sports and Gaming Top 10 Highlights – Legal changes in the sports and gaming industries.
- Miscellaneous – Other notable legal developments and cases.
Each section is designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the year’s most influential legal changes, challenges, and advancements.
Thank you for your continued support and engagement, which inspires our ongoing mission to provide clarity and perspective on the legal challenges and opportunities ahead. Here’s to a year of continued growth and shared learning in 2025.
LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY TOP 10 HIGHLIGHTS
1. Screenwriters Rights Association of India (SRAI) receives registration as a copyright society for dramatic and literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
In a landmark development, SRAI has received registration as a copyright society for dramatic and literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957 on Dec 30, 2024. This registration empowers screenwriters who, until now, have mostly received royalties on paper since the 2012 Copyright Act amendments. The focus will now shift to how the tariff scheme for SRAI is determined. With the complexities of the film, television, and OTT industries, achieving consensus on a fair and transparent tariff structure will be a challenging yet essential task. Registration certificate can be accessed here.
2. MEITY replaces the contentious AI advisory, drops the requirement of government’s permission: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) on March 15 withdrew a controversial ‘advisory’ that required Artificial Intelligence (AI) firms to obtain government permission to make their products available to users online in India. A revised advisory withdrawing the original March 1 missive, in “supersession” of the latter, also withdrew the requirement of an action taken report from tech firms due on March 15, 2024. The Advisory advises the intermediaries that use Artificial Intelligence model(s)/LLM/Generative Al, software(s), or algorithm(s) on or through its computer resource to ensure compliance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules and other laws in force. Further to ensure that they do not permit any bias or discrimination or threaten the integrity of the electoral process. Under-tested/unreliable Artificial Intelligence foundational model(s)/ LLM/Generative Al, software(s} or algorithm(s) or further development on such models should be made available to users in India only after appropriately labeling the possible inherent fallibility or unreliability of the output generated. Further, “consent popup” or equivalent mechanisms may be used to explicitly inform the users about the possible inherent fallibility or unreliability of the output generated. The Advisory further states that where any intermediary through its software or any other computer resource permits or facilitates synthetic creation, generation, or modification of a text, audio, visual, or audio-visual information in such a manner that such information may be used potentially as misinformation or deepfake, it is advised that such information created, generated, or modified through its software or any other computer resource is labeled or embedded with permanent unique metadata or identifier, in a manner that such label, metadata or identifier can be used to identify that such information has been created, generated or modified using the computer resource of the intermediary. Further, if a user makes any changes, the metadata should be configured to identify the user or computer resource that has effected such change. The revised advisory can be accessed here.
3. NBDA Expands Self-Regulation to Digital News Media
The News Broadcasters & Digital Association (NBDA), India’s apex news broadcasters’ body, has extended its self-regulatory framework to include digital news media under the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA). This move aligns with the rapidly evolving media landscape. Key updates include the introduction of new definitions to the Regulations, Broadened penalties for Code of Conduct violations, incorporating graded penalties, and Suo motu emergency powers for NBDSA to issue interim directions. These changes aim to enhance accountability and uphold ethical journalism standards in broadcast and digital news.
4. SC Issues Guidelines on Depicting Persons with Disabilities in Media: In Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed concerns over portraying persons with disabilities in visual media. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala emphasized the harmful impact of stereotypes, differentiating between “Disability Humor” that challenges biases and “Disabling Humor” that demeans. The case involved objections to the film Aankh Micholi, which Nipun Malhotra claimed violated constitutional rights and disability laws. Despite these concerns, the Court upheld the film’s certification by the CBFC. However, it issued guidelines for future portrayals, including Avoiding derogatory language, accurately depicting medical conditions, Showcasing diverse experiences of disability, and Steering clear of myths or stereotypes.
5. Section 31D’s Statutory Licensing Excludes ‘Internet’ Broadcasting. On August 21, 2024, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) officially withdrew its 2016 Office Memorandum that extended Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, to cover internet-based transmissions. This move follows the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench ruling in Tips Industries Ltd. vs. Wynk Music Ltd. & Anr. (Commercial Appeal Nos. 424 and 425 of 2019), which clarified that Section 31D applies only to traditional, non-internet radio and TV broadcasting, excluding internet-based offerings.
6. Bombay High Court Strikes Down IT Rules, 2023, on Government Fact-Check Unit
In September, the Bombay High Court struck down the amended Information Technology Rules, 2023, which allowed the government to set up a fact-checking unit (FCU) to monitor and flag “fake, false, and misleading” information about the government on social media. Justice Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar, acting as the “tie-breaker,” ruled that the amendment violated constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and equality. He criticized the vague definition of “fake, false, and misleading” and the chilling effect it could have on intermediaries. The case stemmed from a petition by Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and the Association of Indian Magazines (AIM) arguing that the rules were arbitrary and violated free speech. The petitioners challenged the government’s power to censor content related to its operations, mainly through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. While Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta defended the FCU as a necessary tool to combat misinformation, the petitioners argued that existing mechanisms like the Press Information Bureau already served the same purpose without overreach. Justice Chandurkar’s verdict follows a split decision by Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, with Patel siding with the petitioners and Gokhale upholding the rules.
7. NCPCR Urges Government to Mandate Disclaimers on OTT Platforms to Protect Minors from Adult Content
In October 2024, The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) urged the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to require over-the-top (OTT) platforms to display clear disclaimers in English, Hindi, and regional languages before showing any adult content. These disclaimers should warn subscribers that they could be held legally accountable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act if their child accesses such material. Section 11 of the POCSO Act punishes the display of pornographic material to children, with penalties including up to three years in prison and fines. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act penalizes child cruelty, including exposure to harmful content, with imprisonment or fines. The NCPCR’s request emphasizes the need for more significant safeguards to protect children from exposure to adult material online.
8. Supreme Court Holds Influencers and Celebrities Accountable for Misleading Ads: In a May 7 judgment, the Court affirmed that the fundamental right to health includes consumers’ right to know the quality of products and services. Delivered by Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the Indian Medical Association vs Union of India case, the ruling highlighted the lack of a proper system for reporting misleading ads. Importantly, the Court ruled that celebrities and social media influencers are equally responsible for misleading advertisements they endorse. The Court directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to act against misleading advertisements proactively, without waiting for complaints. Advertisers must also upload self-declarations on the Broadcast Sewa Portal, and a new portal for print and online ads is to be launched within four weeks. This decision enforces accountability for influencers and advertisers, ensuring consumer rights are protected.
9. MIB urges OTT platforms to curb glamorization of drug use in content
The Ministry has advised OTT platforms to carefully review content and avoid normalising or promoting drug use, in line with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Platforms must not depict drug use as fashionable, as this could lead to legal consequences. They are also urged to implement content classification, warnings, disclaimers, and public health messages about the dangers of substance abuse. Promoting educational content on drug addiction through documentaries should be part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Read advisory here.
10. Government notifies the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules with an aim to improve film certification
The Central government has officially notified the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, aimed at enhancing the process of certifying films for public exhibition. The Ministry and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) stated that they had previously engaged in extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including filmmakers, cinema owners, disability rights organizations, non-governmental organizations, film industry associations, the general public, and other relevant parties. This inclusive approach aimed to gather diverse perspectives and ensure comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors.
The new rules introduce age-based categories for film certification, which includes subdividing the existing UA category into three age groups: seven years (UA 7+), 13 years (UA 13+), and 16 years (UA 16+), instead of the previous 12 years. These age-based classifications are intended as recommendations, allowing parents or guardians to make informed decisions regarding their children’s exposure to such films. The implementation of this system aims to ensure that young viewers are exposed to content appropriate for their age, striking a balance between safeguarding vulnerable audiences, such as children, and upholding principles of freedom of expression and consumer choice.
Read here.
COPYRIGHT TOP 10 CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. ANI Takes OpenAI to Delhi High Court Over Alleged Copyright Violations
In a significant first, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd., has sued OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, alleging unauthorized reproduction and infringement of its original news content. ANI claims OpenAI exploited its content in two ways: using it to train large language models (LLMs) at the training stage, and reproducing it verbatim through ChatGPT at the output stage. The agency also accuses OpenAI of attributing false statements to it, citing concerns about reputation damage and the spread of fake news.
Justice Amit Bansal issued summons in the suit, considered ANI’s plea for an interim injunction, and appointed 2 amici curiae- Prof. Arul Scaria George and Adv. Adarsh Ramamujan to address the complex legal issues surrounding Generative AI and Copyright infringement. OpenAI has objected to the court’s jurisdiction, arguing it has no servers or operations in India and that ANI’s website was blocked upon request. The matter is listed for hearing in January 2025.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd V/s Open AI Inc & Anr
You can read more about it here and here.
2. 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 a generative 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 freelancing models. They also call for regulations to block unregulated platforms and punish AI-generated image sales.
The case highlights concern about privacy and consent, as well as moral and economic rights of artists and more particularly the misuse of women’s images for commercial purposes. See more here. The PIL has been tagged with the Deepfake PIL (Rajat Sharma v. Union of India) and has been consolidated to be listed on 10/4/2025.
3. Bombay High Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that PPL and Novex can issue licenses without being registered copyright societies under Section 33 of the Copyright Act (Novex v. Trade Wings Hotels Limited)
Bombay High Court has held that music rights holders like Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex are copyright owners and can issue licenses even if they are not registered as copyright societies under Section 33 of the Copyright Act.
The court rejected the argument that the non-registration of PPL and Novex as copyright societies makes their assignment agreements illegal and their cause of action invalid. The Court held:
“Thus, in my view a partial assignment created as in the present case in favour of PPL and Novex i.e. to communicate sound recording to the public, to the extent of the right so created, the assignee is an ‘owner’ of the copyright in the work.”
The court disagreed with the Madras HC’s view in Novex Communications Vs. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd. which distinguished between granting licenses in an individual capacity and carrying on the business of licensing.
The court held that the Madras HC had overlooked the primacy of Section 30 giving the owner the right to grant interest in the copyright by way of license. Accordingly, the court held that for a limited purpose, assignees such as Novex and PPL become owners of the copyright under Sections 18 and 30 of the Copyright Act.
Read order here.
4. No copyright over science, mathematical formulae and equations which are “ideas” for the purposes of copyright.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court remarked in Addala Sitamahalakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, that “Mathematical questions are an expression of laws of nature. The discovery of such laws cannot confer a monopoly to those who describe it.”
Justice V Sujatha thus concluded that: “Once a book is declared as part of a syllabus, then, students are free to use the questions in it in any manner and therefore, guide books that are helping the students to solve the questions will also be covered under the fair use and exception to copyright.”
The Court also noted “Copyright as a natural or common law right has thus been taken away by the Copyright Act. There can be no copyright in any author, composer or producer save as provided under the Copyright Act.” The Court further reiterated the principle that ideas, specifically factual information used as a part of educational material, are not protected by Copyright.
Read judgment here.
5. 8 global entertainment companies move the Delhi HC against three alleged “rogue cyberlocker websites” for unauthorisedly hosting copyrighted content
Eight leading global entertainment companies – including Netflix, Warner Bros and Paramount Pictures – have moved the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction against three ‘rogue cyberlocker websites’ for unauthorisedly hosting their copyrighted content. According to the plaintiffs, these rogue cyberlocker websites provide an infrastructure specifically designed to incentivise hosting, uploading, storing, sharing, streaming, and downloading of their copyrighted material unauthorisedly. The Plaintiffs had pursued the defendants for taking down the infringing contents by notifying them of the listings from time to time, however, despite promises to comply, it was found that the mechanism itself, which was embedded as part of the infrastructure of defendants’ websites, permitted generation of a new link the moment the takedown took place which could be disseminated by the uploader and therefore, potentially could be disseminated through parallel websites. Thus, as per counsel for plaintiffs, the takedown itself was elusive and of no effect, since the system immediately permitted generation of a new link. He thereby submits that it became a “hydra-headed monster” which made it difficult to police through only takedown measures.
Justice Anish Dayal directed the defendants to take down all features which allow regeneration of links and re-uploading of infringing content post takedown inter alia the following features – removal of the “generate link” and “disable download link (protected option)” tabs. Upon non-compliance, Justice Anish Dayal further directed the Rogue websites, which have contested for the first time, to shut all “operations” in India. The matter is next listed on 05.02.2025
Read full order here.
6. Delhi High Court passes dynamic+ injunction in favour of Viacom 18; restrains illegal IPL streaming
The Delhi High Court, for the first time, granted a Dynamic+ injunction in a real time, contemporaneous copyright infringement suit. The Court held:
“During the currency of the IPL Events, if any further websites are discovered which are illegally streaming and communicating content over which the Plaintiff has rights, the Plaintiff is given liberty to communicate the details of such websites to the DoT and MeitY for issuance of blocking orders, and simultaneously to the ISPs for blocking the said websites, so as to ensure that these websites can be blocked on a real time basis there is no considerable delay.”
This is a significant shift in copyright remedies in India.
Read order here.
7. Calcutta High Court rules in favor of IPRS in relation to the exploitation of music as part of sound recordings and films on Vodafone’s VAS services
The Calcutta High Court, in its judgment, upheld the rights of the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. (IPRS) against Vodafone Idea Ltd., reinforcing the necessity for Vodafone to obtain a license from IPRS and pay royalties before commercially exploiting the musical and literary works incorporated in sound recordings as part of their Value-Added Services (VAS). The court dismissed Vodafone’s claim that it was not required to pay royalties to IPRS, highlighting that amendments to the Copyright Act provide substantive rights to the authors of original works, ensuring they receive royalties for every public performance or communication of their work. The court emphasized the legal obligation of commercial exploiters to compensate the original authors and rejected the idea that the underlying works can be used without proper licensing and royalty payments, asserting the protective measures intended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 to prevent the exploitation of creators with weaker bargaining powers.
Read the judgement here. An appeal has been filed and is pending adjudication.
8. Tips Industries and Wynk Ltd. Settle Dispute with INR 12 Crore Agreement, Bombay High Court Approves Settlement
The Bombay High Court has approved the settlement between Tips Industries Ltd. and Wynk Ltd. (now Xtelify Ltd.) on their copyright dispute in respect of Section 31D of the Copyright Act. The court allowed the amendment of the defendants’ name and recorded the Consent Terms, which include a total payment of INR 12 crore by Wynk Ltd. to Tips Industries Ltd. for the use of its repertoire from September 1, 2016, to September 10, 2020. The payment schedule is detailed in the Consent Terms, and the suits are disposed of accordingly. The interim applications are also disposed of, and court fees are to be refunded as per rules.
Read the full order here.
9. Filing Of Pending Compulsory License Application Does Not Permit Copyright Infringement says the Delhi High Court:
Recently, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction against Al-Hamd Tradenation and prohibited them from using Phonographic Performance Limited’s (PPL) copyrighted sound recordings. The court ruled that the defendant must secure a license and pay the necessary fees to PPL. As per the news report, Al-Hamd refused to pay the current tariff of Rs. 55,440/-, offering only Rs. 16,500/- and threatening to seek a compulsory license under Section 31(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Consequently, the case came about. The court, favoring PPL, emphasized that failure to protect its rights would result in irreparable damage, and a mere application for compulsory license, which has not been granted would not come in the way of such an order.
Read order here.
10. P&H High Court: No copyright in manufacture, sale of clothing items
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a case against a man accused of manufacturing and selling garments under a fake Puma label, ruling that copyright does not apply to the manufacture and sale of clothing items. The case originated from a 2017 incident in which the accused was charged under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act for allegedly infringing Puma’s Copyright. Later, additional charges for trademark infringement were added under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act.
A Bench of Justice Karamjit Singh examined Section 13 of the Copyright Act, which specifies the types of works eligible for copyright protection. The Court clarified:
“As per Section 13 of the Act of 1957, Copyright could subsist with regard to the afore-stated classes of works. There could be thus no Copyright in manufacture and sale of garments. Thus, prima facie, the prosecution has failed to prove infringement of the provisions of Act of 1957, punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the said Act.”
The Court also addressed the trademark infringement charges, ruling that the case had been improperly investigated. It found that the case was investigated by Inspector Vijay Kumar in violation of the provision of Section 115(4) of the Act of 1999, which provides that in a case relating to infringement of the provisions of Trademark Act 1999, the matter is to be investigated by the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Due to these procedural errors, the Court concluded that the prosecution under both the Copyright Act and the Trademarks Act was legally invalid, leading to the quashing of the criminal case
Read more about it here.
TRADEMARK TOP 10 CASE HIGHLIGHTS
1. Delhi High Court: E-commerce platforms must be diligent in protecting rights of others
The Delhi High Court recently held that e-commerce platforms must act and diligently protect the intellectual property rights of others and cannot claim ‘safe harbour’ as an intermediary if the platforms are used to abet counterfeiting. The platforms are commercial ventures and cannot facilitate protocol by which infringers and counterfeiters are given an avenue to infringe and counterfeit.
The observation comes in light of an interim injunction passed against IndiaMART InterMESH Limited (IndiaMart) from providing any registered trademark of PUMA in respect of goods as search option in its drop-down menu presented to prospective sellers. The website was also ordered to takedown all infringing content.
The order of the Court dated January 03, 2024 can be accessed here.
2. Dish TV cannot claim monopoly over the word ‘DISH’ under the Trade Marks Act
In the case of Prasar Bharti vs Dish TV India Limited, the Delhi High Court ruled that an exclusive right on use of the word ‘Dish’ cannot be granted to Dish TV. The division bench of the Delhi High Court held that a part of the trademark DISH TV is certainly an essential feature of its trademark but the same would not entitle Dish TV to establish a monopoly over the use of the generic word ‘Dish’.
This case arises after Prasar Bharti channel was restrained by an order of the Single Judge restraining them from adopting the trademark ‘DD Free Dish’.
Finally, the division bench set aside the single judge’s order after a comparison of the two marks.
vs
Read order here.
3. Delhi High Court restrains ‘Wow Punjabi’ from using mark similar to ‘Wow! Momos’
The plaintiff informed the Court that it had coined and adopted the trade mark ‘Wow’/’Wow!Momo’ in 2008 for providing products & services in the food industry.
Further, it informed the Court that it had over 600 outlets across 30 plus cities and a brand valuation of about ₹1,225 crores in the year 2021 and had grown more than 60% in the year 2022.
The plaintiff also produced all its registered marks using the mark ‘Wow’ and highlighted that it had bought the domain name ‘www.wowmomo.com’ in 2013.
The Court noted that the defendant had not replied to a cease and desist notice and a follow up legal notice sent by the petitioner.
Thereafter, based on a comparison between the mark of the plaintiff and the defendant, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case.
Read order here.
4. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Burberry in Trademark Dispute
The Delhi High Court has provided interim injunction relief to luxury brand Burberry in a case involving trademark infringement and passing off, against Petrol Perfume. Justice Sanjeev Narula’s bench noted that actions by Petrol Perfume violated Burberry’s intellectual property rights, negatively impacting its established goodwill and reputation. The court remarked on the defendant’s lack of good faith in adopting similar trademarks, indicating an intent to exploit Burberry’s reputation.
Burberry had accused Petrol Perfume of engaging in deceptive practices by manufacturing and selling perfumes and related items under marks ‘My Petrol’ and ‘Mr. Petrol’ which resembled Burberry’s ‘My Burberry’ and ‘Mr. Burberry’ trademarks.
Read order here.
5. PhonePe and BharatPe resolve trademark dispute through out-of-court settlement: Delhi High Court told
BharatPe and PhonePe have settled their trademark infringement dispute through an out-of-court settlement, the Delhi High Court was informed on 29th May, 2024.
This comes after a long-drawn legal dispute across multiple courts over the last 5 years. The settlement will put an end to all open judicial proceedings and the companies have withdrawn all oppositions against each other in the trademark registry.
Both organisations will also carry out other necessary steps to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement with respect to all cases before the Delhi and Bombay High Courts.
The Background
- In August 2018, PhonePe had issued a cease and desist notice, calling upon BharatPe to stop using the trademark name ‘BharatPe’, with ‘Pe’ written in Devanagari Hindi script. In response to this BharatPe agreed to stop using ‘BharatPe’ with ‘Pe’ in Devanagari and gave up use of the same. Thereafter, the defendant started using the mark ‘BharatPe’ only for its services.
- In 2019, PhonePe filed a suit against BharatPe in the Delhi High Court alleging that by using the trademark ‘BharatPe’, the company had infringed upon the registered trademark of ‘PhonePe’.
- In October of 2021, BharatPe parent Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd had filed six petitions seeking cancellation of registrations held by PhonePe Pvt. Ltd, for the ‘Pe’ logo in Devanagari before the IP division of the high court.
- In 2021, PhonePe filed a Commercial IP Suit against BharatPe for registration of the trademark ‘PostPe, and ‘postpe’ in various classes. PhonePe argued that BharatPe was trying to claim some sort of exclusivity or distinctiveness in part of its mark i.e. ‘pe’.
- In April 2023, the Bombay High Court dismissed the interim injunction application filed by PhonePe against BharatPe’s Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) arm PostPe, for restraining the use of the brand name ‘PostPe, “which was identical or similar to PhonePe’s trademarks.
6. SC dismisses MakeMyTrip appeal against Google over trademark
The Supreme Court has refused to grant relief to the online travel company MakeMyTrip in its claim against Google, alleging trademark infringement through the Google Ads program.
MMT had accused Google of benefiting its rival company Booking.com through sponsored links subsequent to which MakeMyTrip had alleged infringement of its trademark by Google on its Google Ads programme.
It argued that when its name was searched via the Google search bar, quite often the first advertisement category was that of Booking.com. The apex court dismissed the appeal, stating that Booking.com is not encroaching on MakeMyTrip’s trademark. According to the court, there is no likelihood of confusion as claimed by MakeMyTrip because users intending to visit MakeMyTrip’s website wouldn’t likely end up on Booking.com.
Read more about it here.
7. Delhi High Court passes a John Doe order to restrain trademark infringement of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas
In an order passed on August 7, Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a John Doe order that restrains all unknown individuals from using the name or image of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co’s Executive Chairman, Dr. Shardul S. Shroff, or any of its partners or members.
The Court also directed Google to block fake email IDs and provide details such as phone numbers associated with them. Additionally, the Central government was ordered to take steps to block these phone numbers. The Court granted Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. permission to publish a public notice to inform the public about the false communications being issued by unknown individuals misusing the firm’s registered trademark, logo, trade name, and the names of its representatives. The notice would also inform the public about the ongoing legal action. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas approached the High Court after discovering that unknown individuals were using the firm’s name, logo, and Dr. Shroff’s image to send fraudulent legal notices, emails, and letters to people in an attempt to extort money. The Court was also informed that these activities could involve a larger group of people, potentially harming the firm’s reputation and goodwill.
8. Reusing Another Brand’s Embossed Beer Bottles To Sell One’s Own Beer Product Is Trademark Infringement: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that reusing old beer bottles, which are embossed with the brand name/ logo of another company, to sell one’s own beer product- constitutes trademark infringement.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Pranay Verma thus restrained the sale of two beer companies in old bottles of Mount Everest Breweries Ltd., which are embossed with their beer brand ‘STOK’ and their logo, the face of a panda.
The bench however left open the issue whether such bottles could be re-used after scratching out the brand emboss.
The development comes after Mount Everest Breweries preferred an appeal against a single judge order asking the Commissioner of Excise to decide the dispute afresh. The Commissioner had earlier prohibited all liquor/ beer bottling units from using old glass bottles which carry an embossment on them, for the purposes of refilling and sale of liquor. The Commissioner had also prohibited the reuse of old bottles after removing or scratching the embossed logo.
The Appellant contended that their (embossed) beer bottles were being affixed with Respondent’s label, constituting trademark infringement and passing off. It also alleged violation of the Madhya Pradesh Beer and Wine Rules, 2000.
| The Appellant’s bottles:
|
The Respondent’s bottles:
|
The Respondents contended that they procure empty beer from scrap dealers and then use them for bottling their own manufactured beer, for cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability. They argued that existing labels of the brand are removed and big sized labels of their own brand are affixed, so that the end-consumer is not confused.
It was further contended that the Excise Act or the Rules and the MP Beer and Wine Rules have no such prohibition that the beer bottle of any other manufacturer cannot be used by any other company. Thus, they said the Commissioner’s order restraining them from re-suing old bottles violated their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).
At the outset, the Court considered pictures of the bottles and found that the Respondents had been merely pasting their registered label on the embossed bottles of Appellant.
The brand of the Appellants “STOK” and the “Panda device” continue to remain prominently visible on the bottles. Such bottles contain not one but two brands, which clearly contravenes the MP Foreign Liquor Rules and cannot be permitted.
With regard to the contention of the Respondents that it is not financially viable for them to manufacture beer bottles and therefore, they have adopted the method of reusing bottles of other manufactures.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and prohibition on use of old glass bottles which carry an embossment on them, for the purposes of refilling and sale of liquor, was upheld.
Read order here.
9. 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.
10. Sweden Becomes First Country in the World to Apply for Trademark
The home of cinnamon rolls and fika has applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to protect its name from international duplicates that might confuse unsuspecting travellers who want to experience the original Sweden and is calling on people around the world to support its application via an online petition.
The trademark application addresses a common problem travellers face with name-alike locations – with eight places around the world called “Sweden”, multiple Germanys, dozens of Americas, and 34 Londons globally, it’s not hard to see why a little brand clarity might be in order.
Visit Sweden has decided it’s time to step in and help tourists avoid holiday blunders, so no one packs for the Swedish lakes and forests, only to find themselves in a far-off town with the same name but none of the Scandi charm.
A recent survey by Visit Sweden revealed almost half of travellers (45%) encounter duplicate place names when planning trips and a surprising 8% confessed they have even ended up in the wrong spot.
The study also revealed a large share of younger travellers aged 20-32 support the idea of trademarking names to prevent location mix-ups (54% in the US, 45% in the UK and 44% in Sweden).
The application reflects recent trends in protecting brand authenticity as people become more alert to “dupes” in fashion, products – and now, destinations.
CONTENT REGULATION TOP 10 HIGHLIGHTS
1. Madras HC asks YouTuber to pay Rs. 50 lakh compensation to transgender-celebrity Apsara Reddy for ridiculing transgender people
Apsara Reddy had filed a lawsuit against Joe Micheal Praveen, claiming Rs 1.25 crore in damages for releasing at least ten defamatory YouTube videos that harmed her reputation. She stated that the defamatory and slanderous recordings had caused her a great deal of pain and suffering. Apsara Reddy also asked the court to order Google to take down the ten videos posted by Joe Micheal Praveen.
The Madras High Court had issued a warning to YouTubers and social media writers who target and ridicule transgender people. The court had ordered YouTuber Joe Micheal Praveen to pay Rs 50 lakh in compensation to transgender-celebrity Apsara Reddy, the AIADMK’s spokesman in Tamil Nadu.
2. India one of few prior censorship countries where scenes deleted before film release: Delhi High Court rejects PIL against Aankh Micholi
The PIL was moved by Nipun Malhotra, a disability rights activist suffering from a locomotor disability, claiming that the film was disparaging and violative of the rights of several classes of PwDs, including those with speech, vision and hearing disabilities.
It was alleged that the film contained disturbing and deeply troubling portrayal of PwDs, which runs afoul of not only established societal norms but also legal provisions that safeguard their rights and dignity.
The plea sought a direction upon the producer of the movie to make a short awareness movie about hardship faced by PwDs and create awareness about the subject. It also sought a direction upon the producer to ensure an equal opportunity policy is formulated in conformity with the Rights of Persons With Disability (RPWD) Act and encourage employment of people with disabilities.
The Delhi High Court had refused to entertain a public interest litigation claiming that the film “Aankh Micholi”, which released in November last year, is derogatory to people with disabilities.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Courts generally do not interfere once the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) gives certificate to a film.
The bench observed that creative freedom should be cherished and that there is no need to curtail it.
Observing that a lot of latitude is given in cinematic work, the court remarked:
“We do not want too much censorship. We are one of the few countries where there is prior censorship. We have gone the extra mile. Normally, in the rest of the world, it is only grading which takes place and there is no prior censorship. We are a country where scenes are deleted before the movie is released.”
The bench observed that creative freedom should be cherished and that there is no need to curtail it.
Read judgement here.
3. Obscenity case against TVF for the series ‘College Romance’ quashed by the Supreme Court.
In a significant development for India’s digital content landscape, the Supreme Court overturned a Delhi High Court verdict that upheld criminal proceedings against The Viral Fever’s (TVF’s) popular web series College Romance over the use of swear words and profanity. The case centered around allegations of “indecent content” within the third season of the Series.
The Delhi High Court in March 2023, had sided the prosecution holding TVF, the show’s director Simranjeet Singh and actor Apoorva Arora responsible for purportedly creating content that is considered vulgar, obscene and profane. This judgment had ignited debates on artistic freedom, societal norms, and the limitations of content regulation in the digital era.
A bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and P.S. Narasimha set aside the FIR and the HC’s decision, noting that incorrect standards were applied by the court and no offence could be made out under the IT Act.
While clarifying that the standard for determining obscenity could not be that of an adolescent’s or child’s mind, the Court hinted towards the High Court which ‘incorrectly used the standard of “impressionable minds”. For the web series not being classified as restricted to those above the age of 18 years, as pointed out by the High Court, the Court commented that “While such anxiety is not misplaced, the availability of content that contains profanities and swear words cannot be regulated by criminalizing it as obscene.” It further hinted at the lack of offence made out under Section 67A as per High Court’s remarks.
Read more about it here.
4. Supreme Court sets aside order directing Bloomberg to take down defamatory article on Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by a trial court directing Bloomberg to take down an article, alleging that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had found a US$241mn (million) accounting irregularity at Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Upholding the trial court’s order, the Delhi High Court (HC) directed Bloomberg to remove the article about Zee Entertainment.
In an order, the SC bench headed by chief justice DY Chandrachud says, “The HC ought to have, in our view, primarily assessed if three-fold test of grant of injunction was made out after evaluation of facts. The error by the trial judge is repeated by the HC as well. The three-fold test cannot be recorded as a mantra without an appreciation of facts. We have no option but to set aside this order of the trial court and the high court. Since proceedings are before the trial court, Zee Entertainment can renew their plea for an injunction and the trial court may decide the plea according to the observations made herein.
Read more about it here.
5. Delhi HC refuses interim stay on Netflix series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper
The Delhi High Court has denied an interim stay on the Netflix series “Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper,” stating it falls under comedy and isn’t derogatory to the chartered accountancy profession. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and four CAs filed a plea claiming the show defames their profession. After watching the trailer, Justice Navin Chawla found no basis for the injunction, noting the series is comedic and doesn’t reference the CA profession derogatorily. It further noted that “It is neither intended nor can be perceived to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy or the toppers or rank holders in the examination conducted by the plaintiff no. 1 (ICAI). The artistic expression, even in the form of a commercial speech, cannot be curtailed on the basis of an oversensitive approach.”
Read order here.
6. The Bombay High Court permits the release of the movie “Teesri Begum”
The Bombay High Court has approved the release of the movie “Teesri Begum” after the filmmakers agreed to modify a controversial slogan and add a disclaimer. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had previously ordered Bokadia, the movie’s producer, to change a scene where a Muslim man chants “Jai Shree Ram” while being attacked by Hindu wives. Additionally, the CBFC required the removal of a scene related to Triple Talaq, deeming it contrary to a Supreme Court judgment. The CBFC informed the court that once the modifications were made, it would determine whether to grant an ‘A’ or ‘U/A’ certification. The filmmakers agreed to change the slogan to “Tumko Tumhari Bhagwan Ki Kasam” and to include a disclaimer about the Triple Talaq scene. With these changes, the court allowed the movie’s release.
Read here for more.
7. ‘X’ Corp Does Not Perform ‘Public Function’, Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court ruled that X Corp, formerly Twitter, does not perform “public function” or discharges public duty and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said that the social media platform operates as a “private entity” under “private law” and does not carry out any governmental duties or obligations.
The Court made the observations while dismissing the plea filed by one Sanchit Gupta, a professional with degrees in both Technology and Law, against suspension of his account on X Corp. He alleged that there was a breach of principles of natural justice, equity and fairness.
He contended that he received notification from X Corp that his account’s monetization was paused due to suspension of his account. According to him, this was done without any prior show cause notice, intimation or warning. It was his case that X Corp is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it performs a ‘public function’ by facilitating public discourse through its social media platform.
Rejecting the plea, the court said that though X Corp., plays a critical role in information dissemination and influencing public opinion, its core function is to provide a platform for expression—a service that has ‘public discourse’ as consequence, yet is private in operation as it is a privately owned entity that operates without specific governmental delegation or statutory obligations to perform any public duty.
It added that the social media platform is not mandated to carry out public duties, observing that X Corp is voluntary and user-driven, distinguishing it from entities that operate under a compulsion of law or provide services that are essential public utilities and therefore, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as currently interpreted by jurisprudence on this issue.
The court observed that Gupta’s legal recourse appeared more appropriate for a claim breach of contract rather than a constitutional violation. The proper venue for addressing such a breach would be the civil courts, where contractual disputes are adjudicated, it said.
Read order here.
8. Karnataka High Court restrains Youtubers from Sharing Live Court Streams
The Karnataka High Court issued an order restraining media agencies and individuals from sharing videos of live-streamed court proceedings without authorization. The Court directed platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) to delete any videos that were posted in violation of the existing rules. Certain media agencies were also restrained from displaying such videos on their channels.
The order came in response to a petition filed by the Advocates Association Bengaluru, seeking a directive from the Centre restraining individuals, video-makers, media agencies, etc., from illegally using court proceedings of live streamed videos. The High Court noted that rules prohibiting the sharing of these videos are already in place and that a disclaimer was being displayed to inform viewers not to misuse the content. The petition was filed after controversial videos of Justice V. Srishananda of the High Court surfaced online. In one video, he was seen referring to an area in Bangalore as “Pakistan“.
Case Name: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Union of India
Case Details: Writ Petition No. 26229 / 2024 (GM-RES)
You can read more about it here. You can access the order copy here.
Similarly, 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.
9. Madras High Court dismisses ban on ‘Thangalaan’ OTT release
The Madras High Court dismissed the ban on the OTT release of ‘Thangalaan’ starring Chiyaan Vikram. As per reports, the PIL was filed by a resident named Porkodi from Thiruvallur who demanded the ban on the film’s online release. He alleged that the film portrayed Vaishanvism in a humorous way which could lead to potential tensions between communities. The petition demanded a stay on the OTT release and argued that such a portrayal could disrupt the harmony of the society. The court found that the Thangalaan film was already cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for theatrical release. As a result, the bench ruled that there were no grounds to impose any limitations on the film’s digital release.
Read more about it here.
10. Delhi Court Halts Sale of Book on Rana Kapoor Amid Defamation Claims
A Delhi court has issued an interim injunction against the book “Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor,” authored by journalist Pavan C Lall. District Judge Naresh Kumar Laka of Tis Hazari Court ruled in favor of Rana Kapoor, finding that the book potentially harms his reputation with content that isn’t wholly factual. The injunction prevents the sale, distribution, or circulation of the book and will remain effective until the conclusion of Kapoor’s defamation lawsuit against HarperCollins and Lall.
The court also mandated the removal of specific articles from The Print and prohibited the defendants from making further defamatory statements about Kapoor. HarperCollins argued that the statements in the book were not defamatory, citing Kapoor’s public figure status and the absence of evidence demonstrating actual harm to his reputation caused by the book.
You can read more about it here.
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT CONTENT REGULATION CASES
11. [Sheena Bora Murder Case] Bombay HC Paves Way for Netflix’s Docuseries Featuring Indrani Mukerjea, Dismisses CBI’s Plea
After the special CBI court rejected a CBI plea seeking a stay on the airing of a documentary titled ‘The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth’.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by CBI seeking to stay the release of the Netflix docuseries – “Buried Truth – The Indrani Mukerjea Story.” The docuseries features accused Indrani Mukerjea and five other witnesses cited by the CBI in the Sheena Bora murder trial. Mukerjea is the prime accused in her daughter – Sheena’s – murder. It had directed that a special screening be held for the CBI so that the prosecuting agency is not prejudiced in any way since the trial was ongoing.
The CBI argued that the docuseries would influence witnesses and impact the ongoing trial, especially since the makers have already admitted that five witnesses are interviewed in the docuseries.
Netflix had earlier said that allowing the agency to view the film or stalling its release would amount to pre-censorship, which is not permissible under the law. They further contended that the documentary only depicts what is already in the public domain and that the rights of the accused should take precedence over the prosecution’s rights.
The makers of the documentary cited the case of Sunil Baghel vs State of Maharashtra (2018) wherein 9 independent journalists challenged the trial court’s gag order in the Sohrabuddin Encounter Case. Union Home Minister Amit Shah was notably an accused in the case.
However, with reasons to be recorded separately, the court dismissed the petition.
12. Bombay High Court allows the Release of the Film ‘Hamare Baarah’ after the Makers Agree to Delete Certain Controversial Dialogues
The Bombay High Court allowed the release of ‘Hamare Baarah’ after the filmmakers agreed to delete certain controversial dialogues. The bench of Justices Kamal Khata and Rajesh S Patil handled a petition seeking to revoke the film’s certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court stated that allowing individuals to stall the release of certified films would encourage holding producers to ransom. Earlier, another bench had stayed the film’s release, initially set for June 7, 2024, until June 14, 2024. However, the court permitted the release after the deletions were agreed upon, which the petitioner had claimed were derogatory. The petitioner argued that the film violated the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and was derogatory to the Islamic faith and married Muslim women in India. The court reviewed a CBFC panel’s report but expressed dissatisfaction as the panel requested more time instead of providing comments. Senior Advocate Rahul Narichania, representing the filmmakers, stated that the deletions were made without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The CBFC’s counsel, Advait Sethna, pointed out that fresh certification would be required if deletions were made. The court concluded that preventing the film’s exhibition, which was already certified by the CBFC, would unfairly harm the filmmakers. It cited previous judgments to emphasize that certified films should not be stalled. The court directed that from June 8, 2024, all shows would feature the new version with the deleted dialogues and instructed the filmmakers to apply to the CBFC Delhi for re-issuance of the certificate. Plus, it clarified that this voluntary deletion by the filmmakers was not mandated by the court and should not set a precedent. Further hearings were scheduled for June 13, 2024. For more, see here.
13. Gujarat High Court: Lifts stay on release of film ‘Maharaj’
Some members of the Pushtimarg sect have petitioned against its broadcast on Netflix, stating that it damages religious sensitivities. The Gujarat High Court removed the interim ban on the distribution of “Maharaj,” the debut film of Bollywood actor Aamir Khan’s son Junaid stating that the film has no offensive content and does not target the Pushtimarg sect as alleged. The film is based on the 1862 libel lawsuit involving Karsandas Mulji, a Vaishnavite religious leader and social reformer.
14. Mumbai police file an FIR against Nayanthara’s 75th movie “Annapoorani” for promotion of “Love Jihad”
Nayanthara’s 75th film, ‘Annapoorani’, has aroused debate. A complaint submitted at LT Marg Police Station in Mumbai claims the movie encourages Love Jihad. The case alleges that actor Jai’s portrayal of Lord Ram as a meat eater violates religious beliefs. After its digital release on Netflix, the film named ‘Annapoorani: The Goddess of Food’ drew controversy. The Hindu IT Cell filed a complaint with Mumbai police, alleging that the film misrepresents Valmiki’s Ramayana and attacks Lord Ram.
15. Ravi Teja’s ‘Mr Bachchan’: CBFC asks makers of the Telugu film to replace Amitabh Bachchan-Rekha’s poster with that of Jaya Bachchan
‘Mr Bachchan’ is the remake of Ajay Devgn’s ‘Raid’ which released in 2018. The Telugu film released on the eve of Independence Day. CBFC has now asked the makers of the film to make few changes. They have asked the makers to replace Amitabh Bachchan-Rekha’s poster with that of Jaya Bachchan.
16. 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)
17. Bombay High Court rejects plea by Lt. Colonel Purohit to stay release of movie on 2008 Malegaon blasts
The Bombay High Court on 13th November, 2024 dismissed a plea seeking a stay on release of the movie “Matchfixing- The Nation is at Stake”, a film inspired by the 2008 Malegaon blast case.
The film’s portrayal of the blast and the events that ensued was challenged by Lt. Colonel Prasad Purohit, one of the accused in the case, who argued that it could harm his reputation and career.
Another petition filed by Nadim Khan, who claimed the film hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims, was withdrawn after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) represented by advocate Deepak Shukla confirmed that certain objectionable parts had already been removed during certification.
The Bench consisting of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed Purohit’s petition.
The Petitioner’s Case– Purohit had argued that the film’s release violated a “2019 media gag order” imposed by a special NIA court which barred media from reporting about the case to maintain the integrity of the trial.
He contended that the same restrictions should apply to the movie since it could influence public opinion and interfere with the ongoing trial.
The Respondent’s view– The movie’s producers, countered that the gag order was issued when the trial had not yet begun and was directed only at media outlets.
The producers argued that as third-party filmmakers, they were not bound by the order. They further argued that the film is based on a fictional book, ‘The Game Behind Saffron Terror’ and that the movie includes a disclaimer stating that it is purely fictional and has no connection to real-life events.
The Court’s Ruling– While the court acknowledged Purohit’s concern regarding the film’s trailer which invites viewers to “discover the truth,” it ultimately dismissed the petition on the ground that the film is a work of fiction and would not affect the ongoing trial.
The Court also rejected Purohit’s argument that the case resembled the 2004 Black Friday movie case where the film based on the 1993 Mumbai bombings was temporarily withheld due to its portrayal of events during an ongoing trial.
The bench noted that the Black Friday film depicted events as true and was based on books that reflected the prosecution’s narrative. In contrast, the movie Match fixing is fictional and its producers have made clear that it was not meant to represent real events, the Court said.
The Malegaon blast case, in which six people were killed and over 100 were injured in a bombing near a mosque on September 29, 2008, is currently at the final argument stage.
Read order here.
18. Kangana Ranaut’s ‘Emergency’ to see cuts suggested by CBFC, Bombay HC disposes plea by Zee
The Bombay High Court disposed of Zee Entertainment’s petition alleging that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was “illegally” and “arbitrarily” withholding certification for the Kangana Ranaut-starrer Emergency film. The decision was taken after Zee Entertainment Enterprises, a co-producer of the film, informed the Bombay High Court that certain changes including cuts suggested by the revising committee of the CBFC were agreed with.
“It is needless to say that while disposing of this petition, the Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the contentions of either parties. Any observations made in earlier orders shall be treated only as prima facie observations. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved,” a division bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla noted in the order.
19. Censor board directs makers to remove ‘Bharatha’ from title of Malayalam film ‘Oru Bharatha Sarkar Ulpannam’
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has directed the makers of the upcoming Malayalam film Oru Bharatha Sarkar Ulpannam to remove the word ‘Bharatha’ from the title for the film to get permission for release.
Though the producers have the choice to go for an appeal against the decision or to approach the court, they have chosen to release the movie with the changed title of Oru Sarkar Ulpannam considering the financial losses that may be caused by postponement.
The film was earlier set to release on March 1, 2004. It was later postponed to March 8. CBFC officials did not have any issues with the content of the film, for which it has given a clean ‘U’ certificate, but insisted on a change in the title.
The original title which was cleared for the trailer has now been asked to be changed at a time when the producers have already printed 30,000 posters with the old title. The makers said that they will put black stickers over the word and use the posters as a mark of protest. As per them the film does not say anything critical against any government and in fact, portrays the National Population Control Mission’s programme in a positive light. They makers have made repeated requests to the regional committee (of CBFC) to reconsider the decision. However, despite convening multiple times to discuss the issue, the CBFC have stuck to their original stand.
20. Telangana High Court refuses to halt release of Telugu film Razakar: A Silent Genocide Of Hyderabad
The Telangana High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting the release of the movie “Razakar: A Silent Genocide of Hyderabad,” citing the petitioner’s failure to challenge the Certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification.
The bench addressed a writ petition submitted by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, which claimed that the film, scheduled for release on March 15th, had the potential to offend religious sentiments. The petition was set for court orders based on office objections. When delivering the verdict, the bench observed that besides not disputing the exhibition certificate itself, the petitioners had not viewed the movie, thus lacking grounds to argue that it contained objectionable content.
Read order here.
21. Calcutta High Court allows Release of “The Diary of West Bengal”
The Calcutta High Court declined to issue an interim order restraining the release of the Hindi film The Diary of West Bengal, observing that in a democratic setup, healthy criticism should not be stopped.
A public interest litigation (PIL) had been filed seeking to halt the film’s release, alleging that it portrays the Chief Minister of West Bengal in a negative light. Although the court was not inclined to grant immediate relief, it agreed to list the matter for a hearing in three weeks, allowing the senior advocate representing the petitioner to make detailed submissions in support of the petition.
You can read more about it here.
22. Bombay High Court: The movie ‘Hamaare Baarah’ is fine, it sends out social message
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the film ‘Hamare Baarah’, which promotes women’s empowerment while without offending Muslim religious sensitivities. Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla overturned the previous order, allowing the film to be released. The film examines family dynamics, misinterpretations of religious beliefs, and the ramifications of a post-delivery death.
Read order here.
23. PIL plea in Madras High Court insists on regulating YouTube content:
A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking orders to the government to evolve a mechanism to regulate the functioning of YouTube to keep a check on the ‘unbridled display of objectionable content’ which affects the ‘peace and tranquillity in the society’. The petitioner, advocate V Parthiban said “The lack of a mechanism to regulate YouTube content is affecting the peace and tranquillity of the general public,” and added that such unrestricted videos paved the way for child abuse as explicit content is uploaded for monetary benefits. He said it is shocking that there is no censoring of YouTube content before uploading, even if they are objectionable. By the time the web app decides to remove content, the damage might be already done. He prayed for the court to issue directions to the state government to devise a mechanism to regulate the streaming of videos on YouTube. The matter came up for hearing before the first bench of Acting Chief Justices D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu on Monday. Since the petitioner had not included the Union government as a respondent, the court adjourned the hearing, asking him to change the petition accordingly. (see here for more)
24. PIL Filed Against Rajinikanth’s Vettaiyan Over Dialogues Supporting Illegal Encounters
Superstar Rajinikanth’s upcoming film Vettaiyan faces a legal hurdle as a Madurai-based complainant has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking an interim ban on the film. The complainant argues that certain dialogues in Vettaiyan promote illegal encounters and has requested the court to either delete or mute these parts. During the hearing, Justices Subramanian and Victoria Gowri of the Madras High Court issued notices to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and Lyca Productions, the film’s production house. However, they refused to grant an interim ban on the movie. The case has been adjourned and will be revisited after receiving responses from the concerned parties.
25. “English cinema has done it before”: Kerala High Court on petition against ‘Antony’ movie for hiding gun in Bible
The Kerala High Court on 17th January, 2024 agreed to view an allegedly objectionable part from the Malayalam Movie ‘Antony’. The plea was moved since a scene in the movie depicts a gun hidden inside a Bible, which allegedly hurt religious sentiments of the Christian community.
However, the Court orally remarked that people should not be so intolerant. It pointed that such scenes were depicted as early as in 1960’s and 1970’s in the English movies. “Should we be so intolerant that even for a passing reference to a book you should take up objection?” said the bench.
The Court enquired as to how the book can be said to be the Bible since it was only a fleeting shot. It remarked that the movie was censored by experts before it was released on various platforms.
PRIVACY AND PERSONALITY RIGHTS TOP 10 HIGHLIGHTS
1. Third party cannot claim copyright on person’s life story unless he has already published a work about it: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that facts and events from the life of a person cannot be a subject matter of copyright unless the person claiming copyright violation has already accomplished/ created a work depicting the life story [T-Series v. Dreamline Reality Movies].
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by T-series against an injunction order of a Trial Court restraining them from releasing a movie, ‘Dear Jassi’. The movie was based on the alleged ‘honor killing’ of a woman, whose marriage was not accepted by her family. An injunction suit was filed by the company which stated to have taken permission to make the movie from the husband of the deceased woman.
T-series argued that the movie was based on a book, which covered the couple’s story and they had purchased the right to make the film from the author of the book. Perusing Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which gives the provision for “Meaning of copyright”, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat said, “Mere existence of certain facts constituting a human conduct or chain of events signifying a human behaviour, as such, cannot be made a subject matter over which claim of copyright can be asserted by any person, “Mere existence of an idea or existence of fact or set of facts, per se, and without involving of talent, intelligence or effort by a person in converting the same into a work, by any means, cannot be stated to be a ‘work’ as required under the Copyright Act, qua which a person can assert his copyright.”
The Court clarified that in the present case, the life story of Sukhwinder Singh (husband of the woman who was allegedly murdered in honor killing), as such, cannot be the subject matter of copyright, though it may entitle her husband to some other protections under some other law and for some different purposes. The Court held that the husband did not have any right even to assign the copyright to the respondent-Company.
The Court further rejected the argument that the making of the movie would be a violation of the right to privacy of Sukhwinder Singh.
Read order here.
2. Delhi High Court protects personality rights of Jackie Shroff, restrains unauthorised use of name, images and voice
In a recent interim order, the Delhi High Court has safeguarded the personality and publicity rights of actor Jackie Shroff and has restrained various entities, including e-commerce stores, AI chatbots, and social media accounts, from using Shroff’s name, image, voice, and likeness without his explicit consent.
Justice Sanjeev Narula presiding over the matter recognized Shroff’s “status as a celebrity” which confers upon him rights over his personality traits and associated attributes taking into consideration his illustrious spanning over 220 films, his appearances in TV shows and web series, numerous endorsements, and his trademarked term ‘Bhidu’.
This is the first time that an AI chatbot has been restrained by an Indian Court for violation of personality rights.
Read order here.
3. “Misleading Gutka Ads”- Bombay High Court dismisses plea against SRK, Amitabh Bachchan
Observing that frivolous public interest litigations must be dealt with firm hands and be nipped in the bud, Bombay high court dismissed a petition filed by an NGO named Yash Foundation seeking registration of criminal cases against top cine stars and cricketers including Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Akshay Kumar and Sunil Gavaskar for allegedly promoting and advertising gutka and tobacco products. The Court observed that petitioner had approached the court without doing proper research and study and the petition was not properly filed. Referring to Supreme Court’s verdict, the bench said it has clearly observed that the Court should, on one hand, encourage the PIL petitions being filed raising genuine public causes, especially for the benefit of the disadvantaged sections of the society, however, at the sametime, the Court should also be dealing with frivolous PIL petitions being filed for extraneous reasons with firm hands and such attempts should be nipped in the bud.
Read more about it here.
4. Delhi High Court orders blocking of websites with false articles on Anant Ambani interview with Anand Narasimhan
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the blocking of rogue websites containing false articles about an interview between Reliance Industries Director Anant Ambani and TV18 journalist Anand Narasimhan [Network 18 Media and Investments Limited & Ors v WWW.BrawlersFightClub.Com & Ors].
In an order passed on May 28, 2024 Justice Sanjeev Narula ordered Meta and X to block/remove the Facebook posts and tweets about the interview. Both the social media companies have been asked to file in sealed cover the complete details of the users who made the posts. The Court passed the order after CNBC TV18 and Narasimhan moved the High Court seeking the takedown of eight rogue websites containing a false article titled ‘CNBC-TV18 management refuses to comment on the scandal surrounding its interview Vantara (star of the forest)’. Narasimhan had done an interview with Anant Ambani and the same was published on CNBC TV18’s YouTube channel. In the interview, Ambani talked about his various projects and his love for wildlife. However, the rogue websites published a fake and made-up interview. To lend it credibility, it was presented as if the BBC had published the piece. The article redirected to a cryptocurrency trading platform called Everix Edge, claiming that it helps in earning a passive income and offering astronomical returns. In the fake interview, Ambani allegedly claims that anyone can make money through passive income on the platform. The article quotes Ambani as claiming that anyone can register with Everix Edge with a minimum deposit of ₹26,000 and transform this amount into₹10,00,000, yielding a 4,000% return within a few months. CNBC TV18 argued that these rogue websites are infringing on its trademarks, violating the copyright of the interview, and even violating the personality rights of Narasimhan. The Court agreed with the argument and ordered the blocking of the websites.
Read order here.
5. Cricketer Yuvraj Singh Invokes Arbitration Against Developer Over Personality Rights Violation, Possession Of Apartment
Cricketer Yuvraj Singh has invoked arbitration against a developer over alleged violation of his privacy rights while promoting a real estate project and failure to adhere to the timeline for delivery of possession of an apartment in the project in the national capital. Singh has sent two notices invoking arbitration to the developer M/s Brilliant Etoile Private Limited.
In the notice concerning his privacy violation, Singh has said that the developer has misused his brand value and contravened the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties on November 24, 2020. As per the MoU, Singh was to promote and endorse the project in question. The MoU expired on November 23 last year.
Singh is aggrieved by the alleged continued commercial use of the services provided by him, including the use of his photographs on billboards, project site, social media posts, articles etc. despite expiry of the MoU. This, as per the cricketer, is in complete violation of his Copyright, Personality Rights, Right to Publicity enshrined under the laws and protected as his Intellectual Property Rights.
The second notice concerning possession of a flat in the project states that the developer has failed to adhere to the timeline and schedule of delivery and thus acted in contravention of the Agreement to Sale. Singh has further alleged that the developer compromised on the quality of the material used in the apartment and downgraded the quality of fittings, furnishings, lighting and finishing.
6. Delhi High Court upholds personality rights of Aap Ki Adalat fame, Rajat Sharma
The Delhi High Court recently issued an injunction prohibiting Mr. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary from using photos, videos, or the name of Rajat Sharma in any form such as trademark, logo, trading style, domain name, social media posts, audio-video content, or in connection with any services. This measure aims to prevent any infringement of the journalist’s personality rights.
The High Court ordered the individual claiming to be a political satirist to cease using ‘Jhandiya TV’ and ‘Baap Ki Adalat’. These names were deemed deceptively similar to journalist Rajat Sharma’s news channel India TV and his renowned program ‘Aap Ki Adalat’.
The Plaintiffs, known for their 24-hour Hindi news channel “INDIA TV,” obtained permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, to uplink the channel in 2002. They hold registered trademarks including “INDIA TV” and “AAP KI ADALAT,” a popular television program known for interviewing prominent personalities and gaining substantial popularity over the years.
In their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), part of a suit seeking a permanent injunction, the Plaintiffs raised concerns against the self-proclaimed political satirist. He had been producing and publishing various video and audio content on social media platforms. The Plaintiffs alleged that the alleged satirist was using the mark/logo “Baap Ki Adalat,” which closely resembled their trademark/logo “AAP KI ADALAT.” They argued that satirist’s manner of usage was identical to their own, causing confusion among the public and infringing on their registered trademarks.
Read order here.
7. The personality rights of Director, Karan Johar were upheld by the Bombay High Court while restraining the release of the film – ‘Shaadi ke director Karan aur Johar’
In Karan Johar v IndiaPride Advisory Private Limited, the Bombay High Court issued a restraining order against the release of the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar.” The court also prohibited the use of any promotional material related to the film. The decision came after finding a strong prima facie case that the filmmakers had unauthorizedly utilized filmmaker Karan Johar’s name and personality.
The plea was filed against the movie’s producers, IndiaPride Advisory and Sanjay Singh, and writer-director Bablu Singh, concerning the use of Karan Johar’s name in the film’s title. Despite not directly using the name “Karan Johar” in the title “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar,” it is implied and understood to refer to him, given his prominent stature in the media industry. The plea alleges that this implied reference has significantly harmed Johar’s reputation and goodwill. The film was scheduled for release on June 14.
Justice RI Chagla stated in his order, “In my opinion, the plaintiff has presented a strong prima facie case to safeguard his personality rights, which are inherent to him given his status as a celebrity, evident from his involvement in numerous blockbuster films as both director and producer. It is beyond doubt that the plaintiff has played a pivotal role in shaping the Bollywood film industry and launching the careers of numerous successful actors. There is no doubt, prima facie, that the film in question directly refers to the plaintiff and improperly uses his name.” The case has been adjourned until July 10.
Read order here.
8. Court orders removal of deepfake videos of National Stock Exchange:
The Bombay High Court has ordered social media platforms to remove deepfake videos of NSE’s managing director giving stock tips. Justice RI Chagla directed intermediaries– Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram– to delete accounts infringing on NSE’s trademark. The court emphasized that prompt action is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to NSE found a strong case for temporary relief and restrained further trademark infringements. Social media intermediaries must provide details of accounts involved in these violations. (Read order here.)
The court issued summons in the suit and issued notice on the application seeking ad interim injunction in the matter. The matter will now be heard on October 29.
Read order here.
9. Freedom Of Expression Doesn’t Grant License To Exploit Celebrity’s Persona: Bombay HC ‘Protects’ Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights
Expressing shock over the fact that celebrities particularly performers are vulnerable to being ‘targeted ‘by unauthorised Artificial Intelligence (AI) content creators, the Bombay High Court last week restrained third parties from violating the ‘personality’ rights of Bollywood Singer Arijit Singh.
Justice Riyaz Chagla restrained several entities from using Arijit Singh’s name, voice / vocal style and technique / vocal arrangements and interpretations, mannerism/manner of singing, photograph, image or its likeness, signature, persona, and/or any other attributes of his personality in any form, for any commercial and personal gain and otherwise by exploiting them in any manner whatsoever, without his consent and or authorisation.
The bench underlined, “Even though freedom of speech and expression allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to protect the Plaintiff against any wrongful exploitation of his personality rights and right to publicity.”
This order will also apply on the use of any technology to unauthorisedly use any of Arijit’s personality traits in any form or media, including online platforms, publications, advertisements, promotional materials, merchandise, domain names, or any other commercial endeavour, creating or using artificial intelligence voice models, or voice conversion tool, synthesised voices or digital avatars, caricatures, that imitate or mimic or represent his personality traits, and artificial intelligence, generative artificial intelligence, machine learning, deepfakes, face morphing and / or GIFs, or any of them, on any medium or formats including but not limited to the physical medium, the virtual medium such as websites, Metaverse, social media.
The court passed the ex-parte order on a suit filed by Singh, highlighting how various third parties have been misusing his personality traits. The singer pointed out that some AI creators were using his voice and mannerisms, some online platforms had been selling various articles or products with his photo, signature or name on them, and some websites were being run in his name. All this, the counsel said was being done without his client’s prior permission.
With these observations, the bench ordered various entities to remove content that violates the personality rights of Singh. The matter would be again heard on September 2.
Read order here.
10. Delhi High Court Grants John Doe Order to Protect Vishnu Manchu’s Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court has issued a John Doe order in favor of Telugu actor and producer Vishnu Manchu, safeguarding his personality rights against unauthorized use. The order restricts known and unidentified parties, including several YouTube channels, from exploiting his image, name, voice, and other aspects of his persona for commercial or defamatory purposes. This legal action aims to prevent misuse in any form, including emerging platforms like AI and the metaverse. The order ensures immediate protection, with the court recognizing the potential irreparable harm that could arise without such intervention.
Read order here.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. MeitY tweaks IT rules, surveillance data to be deleted within six months
The government has amended the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules to give the Union and the State home secretary the power to order deletion of the order for interception, monitoring or decryption and the actual information of a person under surveillance after six months.
Until now, the power to delete was with the security agency which had requested the surveillance either from the home ministry or a competent court.
The government has amended the IT Rules for interception, monitoring and decryption of information to give a “competent authority” the power to order deletion of records. In these cases, the home secretary, both at the state and the central level is the competent authority who can now ask for such surveillance orders and its records to be deleted.
The IT ministry has also amended the rules to declare computer resources related to the National Investigation Agency and their associated dependencies as critical information infrastructure.
According to IT ministry officials, the first amendment to the rules gives more clarification as the Home Ministry, both at the central and the state level, is the nodal agency to execute orders to intercept, monitor and decrypt information. The other amendment is to classify computer resources related to NIA as critical information infrastructure. This ensures that if a person tries to attack or steal information from these resources, they can face stricter than usual action.
“Once a resource is classified as critical information infrastructure, the level of protection accorded to it is more,” an official from IT Ministry said. The amendment will also mean that for anyone to access any kind of information from computer resources related to the NIA, a written authorisation will be needed.
For all cases in which no substantial outcome is gathered from such surveillance, the records are deleted within six months unless those electronic or non-electronic records are needed for ongoing investigations. These rules have been in place since 2009.
According to digital rights activists, the IT ministry’s amendment to the rules is an “unconstitutional notification”, which is in violation of “a series of judgments”. Digital rights body Internet Freedom Foundation said that empowering the home secretary, and in turn the home ministry to “destroy crucial evidence every six months through a procedure shrouded in secrecy” will hamper digital transparency. They have further went on to suggest that “Such destruction also allows the government to evade accountability vis-a-vis practices and legality of e-surveillance.”
2. Bombay High Court ‘Tie-Breaker’ Judge Finds 2023 Amendment To IT Rules For Establishing Fact Check Units ‘Unconstitutional’
The ‘tie-breaker’ judge of the Bombay High Court on Friday struck down the 2023 amendments to the IT Rules, which empowers the Central government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify “fake and misleading” information about its business on social media platforms.
Earlier, in the Split Verdict of the Divison Bench, Justice Patel had struck down the rules in entirety and Justice Gokhale had upheld the validity of the Rules. Following the split verdict, the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court had in February appointed Justice Chandurkar as the ‘tie-breaker’ judge to hear the matter and give a final opinion on the petitions.
Read our piece analysing the split verdict pronounced earlier in the year here.
Justice Chandurkar said the amendments also violate Article 21 and do not satisfy the “test of proportionality”.
Social media intermediaries like ‘X’, ‘Instagram’ and ‘Facebook.’ would either have to take down the content or add a disclaimer once the government’s FCU identifies the content on their platform, the amended rules mandate.
The petitioners claimed the two Rules are ultra vires to Sections 79 which safeguards intermediaries from action against third-party content and Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of the IT Act 2000. Further they violate fundamental rights granting citizen ‘equal protection under the law’ under Article 14 & freedom of speech under Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, it was contended.
However, the Ministry of Information and Technology has claimed that it would be in public interest for “authentic information” related to the government’s business to be ascertained and disseminated after fact checking by a government agency (FCU) “so that the potential harm to the public at large can be contained.”
3. Delhi HC takes steps to set up a committee to tackle Deepfake Technology issues
The Central government informed the Delhi High Court that it has constituted a committee to study and tackle the misuse of deepfake technology. The Court directed the Centre to finalize the committee members within a week and urged it to consider inputs from stakeholders, including victims, internet platforms, and telecommunication providers.
The committee has been tasked with reviewing regulations in foreign jurisdictions, consulting stakeholders, and submitting a report within three months. The Court’s directions arose from petitions filed by journalist Rajat Sharma and advocate Chaitanya Rohilla, seeking regulation of “deepfakes”. MEITY also disclosed initiatives like funding deepfake detection research and developing related tools.
4. Information Technology Act may be amended to add rules for GenAI models
The Central government is likely to amend the Information Technology Rules, 2021 to incorporate the rules for regulating artificial intelligence companies and generative AI models. The amendment to make it mandatory for the platforms using artificially intelligent algorithms to train and ensure that their machines are free from bias.
The amendment may also introduce rules for deepfake, synthetic content and explicit instructions for platforms on loan apps. The government to consult experts on other parameters to eliminate bias.
5. Central Government bans 18 OTT apps for displaying vulgar and obscene content
Under the central government, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has issued a ban on 18 OTT platforms, including Uncut Adda, Dreams Films, and Prime Play. This action was taken due to these platforms hosting content deemed as ‘obscene and vulgar,’ and even containing pornographic material, despite prior warnings. Additionally, 19 websites, 10 apps, and 57 social media accounts associated with these OTT platforms have been blocked from public access in India. The OTT platforms were banned due to prima facie violations of Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
The Center expressed concerns regarding the content available on these platforms, citing it as “obscene, vulgar,” and depicting women in a derogatory manner. This content included sexual innuendos and prolonged segments featuring pornographic and sexually explicit scenes that lacked any meaningful thematic or societal relevance.
6. MEITY replaces the contentious AI advisory, drops requirement of government’s permission
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) on March 15 withdrew a contentious ‘advisory’ that required Artificial Intelligence (AI) firms to obtain government permission to make their products available to users online in India. A revised advisory withdrawing the original March 1 missive, in “supersession” of the latter, also withdrew the requirement of an action taken report from tech firms that was due on March 15.
The Advisory advises the intermediaries that use Artificial Intelligence model(s) /LLM/Generative Al, software(s) or algorithm(s) on or through its computer resource to ensure compliance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules and other laws in force. Further to ensure that they do not permit any bias or discrimination or threaten the integrity of the electoral process. Under-tested/unreliable Artificial Intelligence foundational model(s)/ LLM/Generative Al, software(s} or algorithm(s) or further development on such models should be made available to users in India only after appropriately labeling the possible inherent fallibility or unreliability of the output generated. Further, “consent popup” or equivalent mechanisms may be used to explicitly inform the users about the possible inherent fallibility or unreliability of the output generated.
The Advisory further states that where any intermediary through its software or any other computer resource permits or facilitates synthetic creation, generation or modification of a text, audio, visual or audio visual information, in such a manner that such information may be used potentially as misinformation or deepfake, it is advised that such information created, generated, or modified through its software or any other computer resource is labeled or embedded with permanent unique metadata or identifier, in a manner that such label, metadata or identifier can be used to identify that such information has been created, generated or modified using the computer resource of the intermediary. Further, in case any changes are made by a user, the metadata should be so configured to enable identification of such user or computer resource that has effected such change.
7. TRAI excludes Google, WhatsApp, Telegram and others from new licensing rules
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has proposed new recommendations aimed at simplifying the licensing process under Telecom Act. Importantly, the regulatory body has excluded Over-The-Top (OTT) services like WhatsApp, Telegram & other such Platforms under this licensing regime.
The new recommendations advocate for a single, unified authorisation system across different services and regions – a “One Nation One Authorization” framework.
As per TRAI recommendation, any entity that holds this authorisation can provide mobile service, internet service, broadband service, landline telephone service, long distance service, satellite communication service, Machine to Machine (M2M) and internet of Things (IoT) service on a pan India basis. Furthermore, TRAI’s proposals include enabling satellite-based services to offer voice calling and messaging features, broadening the spectrum of services available within the telecom sector.
However, interestingly, the exclusion comes despite pressure from telecom companies like , Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea that wanted these platforms to be regulated in a similar fashion as the traditional telecom services. According to a report by Economic Times last month, the telcos asked TRAI to create licences or permissions for OTT (over-the-top) communication apps, arguing that they provide similar services to what mobile phone operators offer. Meanwhile, OTT apps opposed this, claiming that they are already regulated under the Information Technology Act.
8. MEITY issues advisory to intermediaries to take prompt action in to remove any prohibited content
MEITY on September 09, 2024 has issued an advisory to intermediaries highlighting lack of prompt action in some cases from removing any prohibited content from their platforms. In its advisory, the concerned intermediaries have been directed to complete the takedown process, wherever it is found necessary to do so, proactively and at the earliest possible opportunity and not wait for the expiry of the time limits as prescribed in the IT Rules which is only an outside limit. Emphasis was laid on the order of the Bombay HC involving National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) and Meta Platforms, Inc. &.which centers on fake and fabricated videos featuring an AI-generated likeness of NSE’s Managing Director and CEO, Mr. Ashishkumar Chauhan, being circulated on social media platforms, including Facebook directing the concerned intermediaries to delete or disable the fake information such as morphed videos and profiles circulating on their platform relating to the plaintiff promptly within ten hours of receiving such complaint.
9. Government Targets E-Commerce over Dark Patterns Again!
Per this report, the government is planning to take action against e-commerce companies after receiving numerous consumer complaints about the misuse of “dark patterns” during festive season sales. One may wonder, what are dark patterns? Well, as this website nicely explains “deceptive patterns (also known as “dark patterns”) are tricks used in websites and apps that make you do things that you didn’t mean to, like buying or signing up for something.” Examples include adding hidden items to the cart at checkout, forcing users into memberships, or creating false urgency, like claiming there’s “only 1 item left.” Needless to say, these practices affect consumer protection laws, with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs defining 13 such tactics last year.
10. Army can now directly issue notices to remove online posts
Before this notification, the Indian Army relied on MeitY to get unlawful content related to the army forced taken down or blocked
The ministry of defence has notified a senior army officer — the additional directorate general (ADG) of strategic communication in the Indian army — as the “nodal officer” who can send notices, including takedown notices, to social media intermediaries about illegal content related to the Indian army and its components under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE- HIGHLIGHTS
1. 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.
You can read more about it here.
2. Delhi High Court safeguarded personality rights of Jackie Shroff against AI usage
In the case of Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., the Delhi High Court safeguarded the personality and publicity rights of actor Jackie Shroff and has restrained various entities, including e-commerce stores, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) chatbots, and social media accounts, from using Shroff’s name, image, voice, and likeness without his explicit consent.
The Court had noted that a defendant operated an AI chatbot platform, wherein an unlicensed chatbot of Shroff was hosted, and it would respond to the Users as Jackie Shroff would. On a prima-facie view the Court held that the same was violating Shroff’s personality rights, and was liable to be restrained.
Title: Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.
Citation: CS(COMM) 389/2024.
You can read our article on this case here.
3. Bombay HC Protected Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights including from Artificial Intelligence
Expressing shock over the fact that celebrities particularly performers are vulnerable to being ‘targeted’ by unauthorised Artificial Intelligence (AI) content creators, the Bombay High Court restrained third parties from violating the ‘personality’ rights of Bollywood Singer Arijit Singh.
The singer had pointed out that some AI creators were using his voice and mannerisms, some online platforms had been selling various articles or products with his photo, signature or name on them, and some websites were being run in his name.
The Court had observed that making AI tools available that enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his/her permission constitutes a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights.
Title: Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP
Citation: Interim Application (L) No.23560 of 2024 in Com IPR Suit (L) No.23443 of 2024.
You can read our detailed article here. You can read the order here.
4. World’s first major act to regulate Artificial intelligence passed by European lawmakers
The European Union’s (EU) parliament gave its approval to the world’s inaugural comprehensive set of regulatory guidelines aimed at governing artificial intelligence. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act categorizes AI technologies based on their associated risks, ranging from those deemed “unacceptable” and subject to outright prohibition, to those classified as high, medium, and low hazard. The regulation is anticipated to become effective at the conclusion of the legislative session in May, following final assessments and endorsement from the European Council.
Governments are concerned about the potential impact of deepfakes, which are artificial intelligence-generated content that fabricates events such as photos and videos. There is apprehension that these deepfakes could be utilized in the run-up to a multitude of crucial global elections scheduled for this year. Legal experts characterized the act as a significant milestone in international artificial intelligence regulation, highlighting its potential to serve as a model for other nations to emulate.
You can access the Act here.
5. Lawsuit filed by Silverman and other authors against OpenAI was partially dismissed by US District Court.
The lawsuit filed by authors Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates and other authors against OpenAI over the use of the copyrighted books to train its generative artificial intelligence chatbot, dismissed by the federal judge. As per the order, the authors failed to identify and cite any particular output that is in any manner similar to their books. The authors have been granted the leave to amend and refile the suit.
Title: Paul Tremblay v. OpenAI
Case No. 23-cv-03223-AMO
You can read our detailed article here. You can read the order here.
6. Google slapped with 271 M fine by French regulators over AI training
France’s competition authority fined Google, its parent company Alphabet, and two subsidiaries a total of €250 million ($271 million) for breaching a previous agreement on using copyrighted content for training its Bard AI service, now known as Gemini. According to the authority, Google agreed to provide news agencies and publishers with a “transparent assessment” of their remuneration for usage rights, and to make certain that the negotiations didn’t impinge on “other economic relations” between Google and the publishers. However, the authority has alleged that Google has failed to maintain those commitments in several ways.
You can read more about it here.
7. Tennessee becomes first US state with law protecting musicians from AI
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a bill into law on Thursday that aimed to protect artists including musicians from unauthorized use by artificial intelligence. The legislation is called the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act and will replace the state’s statutory right of publicity law with regulations against AI deep fakes and give local artists explicit protection over their voices for the first time.
You can read our detailed article on this here. You can read more about it here.
8. Federal Court of Canada to Decide whether AI can be considered as authors
The Federal Court of Canada is currently considering a case challenging whether artificial intelligence can be recognized as authors under Canada’s copyright law. Led by the University of Ottawa’s Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, the case aims to establish that only humans can be considered authors under the law, amidst the growing production of AI-generated content.
You can read more about this here.
9. ANI Takes OpenAI to Delhi High Court Over Alleged Copyright Violations
In a significant first, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd., has sued OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, alleging unauthorized reproduction and infringement of its original news content. ANI claims OpenAI exploited its content in two ways: using it to train large language models (LLMs) at the training stage, and reproducing it verbatim through ChatGPT at the output stage. The agency also accuses OpenAI of attributing false statements to it, citing concerns about reputation damage and the spread of fake news.
Justice Amit Bansal issued summons in the suit, considered ANI’s plea for an interim injunction, and appointed 2 amici curiae- Prof. Arul Scaria George and Adv. Adarsh Ramamujan to address the complex legal issues surrounding Generative AI and Copyright infringement. OpenAI has objected to the court’s jurisdiction, arguing it has no servers or operations in India and that ANI’s website was blocked upon request. The matter is listed for hearing in January 2025.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd V/s Open AI Inc & Anr
You can read more about it here and here.
10. Major labels sue AI music services Suno and Udio for copyright infringement
The Recording Industry Association of America has announced the filing of two copyright-infringement cases against the AI music services Suno and Udio for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs in the cases are music companies that hold rights to sound recordings infringed by Suno and Udio – including Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Records.
Read more about it here.
SPORTS AND GAMING TOP 10 HIGHLIGHTS
1. NCPCR highlights lack of KYC norms for gambling apps
The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has written to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, underlining the lack of KYC standards for gambling apps and websites, which it believes has resulted in the illegal participation of children on these platforms. In a letter, the NCPCR stated that a complaint from the New Delhi-based organization ‘Society against Gambling’ talked of the “presence of numerous illegal online gambling websites and applications operating within the country, posing a significant threat to the future well-being of children”.
2. Centre warns celebrities and media against promoting betting and gambling
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has warned celebrities, media, and various stakeholders against endorsing illegal activities like betting and gambling. The advisory, issued by the CCPA Chairman, highlights the use of celebrities to promote such activities, creating an impression of acceptability. Violations of guidelines on misleading advertisements may lead to stringent actions under the Consumer Protection Act. The advisory emphasizes that endorsing online gambling and betting, which are illegal in many states, can result in legal consequences for celebrities and influencers. The 2022 guidelines prohibit advertisements of products or services prohibited by law, applying to all mediums. (See here)
3. Increasing onus on celebrities and influencers to abstain from promoting offshore online betting and gambling on social media.
MIB advisory in March, 2024
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has issued a strict advisory dated March 21, 2024 to all endorsers and influencers on social media including online advertisement intermediaries to refrain from promoting or advertising, including through surrogate advertisements, offshore online betting and gambling platforms. Additionally, social media intermediaries have been urged to conduct sensitisation efforts among users to discourage the dissemination of such content.
The advisory emphasizes on the significant financial and socio-economic implications of online gambling, particularly among the youth demographic.
“It is hereby cautioned that failure to comply with the above may lead to proceedings under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, removal/disabling of social media posts/accounts where such promotional content/advertisements/endorsements are being published, and penal action under the applicable statutes,” the advisory said.
Read more here.
TNOGA’s Legal Action Against Influencers for Promoting Online Betting
For the first time, the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA) has taken legal action against several YouTubers, Instagram influencers, and a private firm for promoting online betting and gambling platforms. These social media personalities, who primarily vlog about food and cinema, subtly promoted offshore fantasy games, poker, and rummy, enticing users with promises of cash rewards of up to ten lakh per day for small deposits.
TNOGA issued show cause notices to the individuals and entities, questioning why their access should not be blocked in Tamil Nadu. After receiving unsatisfactory responses, TNOGA initiated legal proceedings at the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. If found guilty under the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Act, the accused could face fines ranging from five lakh to ten lakh and up to three years in prison. Additionally, some film celebrities, who promoted betting apps via short-lived Instagram stories, are also under investigation. A private firm was also pulled up for advertising betting apps through taxi stickers in Chennai.
You can read more about it here.
4. Karnataka High Court stays the decision which temporarily allowed horse racing, betting at Bangalore Turf Club
The Karnataka High Court stayed a June 18 single-judge order that had temporarily permitted the Bangalore Turf Club (BTC) to conduct on-course and off-course horse racing and betting. A Division Bench of the High Court ruled that the BTC could not conduct such operations while the petition challenging the State’s refusal to allow horse racing and betting this year was pending.
5. Gaming Studios address a letter to PM Modi, seeking clear distinction between Video Games and Real-Money Games
A group of 70 video game studios and esports companies, including Dot9 Games, Outlier Games, and SuperGaming, has written to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. They seek a policy that distinguishes video games from real-money games (RMG). The gaming industry studios advocate for separate categories for video games and RMG in Indian policy for fair regulation.
It was stated that in the letter that “Companies making video games were subject to multiple show cause notices and tax raids, and banks and payment gateway companies have been denying services as well”.
The studios propose the Information and Broadcasting Ministry be the nodal agency for video games, with a dedicated AVGC-XR wing led by a joint secretary-level official. AVGC-XR stands for Animation, Visual Effects, Gaming, Comics, and Extended Reality.
You can read more about this here.
6. Allahabad High Court rules that poker and rummy are games of skill
The Allahabad High Court delivered a major verdict when it decided that rummy and poker are skill-based games, and not gambling. A division bench made up of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjeev Shukla rendered the decision on August 29, 2024 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 filed a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Read order here.
7. PIL Filed in Bombay High Court Seeks Ban on Online Rummy in Maharashtra
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a ban on the online game of Rummy in Maharashtra, arguing that it is a game of “chance” and constitutes gambling. The petitioner claims that apps like Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle promote “online gambling,” which violates the Public Gambling Act, 1867, the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, and the Bombay Wager Act. The petition also requests the State to ban these apps and urges Google to stop providing servers to support them.
During the hearing, the respondents argued that the PIL is not maintainable, stating that several High Courts have already ruled that Rummy is a game of skill, and not chance.
The Court, led by a Division Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhayay and Justice M.M. Sathaye, asked the respondents State, Google, Junglee Rummy and Rummy Circle, to file affidavits on the issue of maintainability and explain how online Rummy qualifies as a game of skill.
You can read more about it here.
8. Enforcement Directorate Cracks Down on Illegal Betting Apps Linked to Chinese Nationals
In a significant operation against illegal online applications associated with Chinese nationals, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has attached assets, including funds held in cryptocurrency wallets on Binance. According to sources, the investigation in Kolkata has revealed that Chinese nationals allegedly operated the illegal betting and gaming application, Fiewin, with the help of Indian accomplices.
The ED has arrested four Indian nationals connected to the case, who are currently in judicial custody. Fiewin was marketed as a platform for making quick and easy money, promoting simple games like Minesweeper and Colour Prediction that rely purely on luck rather than player skill.
You can read more about it here.
9. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Recommendations on the MIB’s National Broadcasting Policy
In April 2024, the MIB released a consultation paper seeking inputs for formulation of a draft National Broadcasting Policy. The consultation paper recognised the growth trajectory of the Indian online gaming industry, whilst seeking inputs on policy and regulatory aspects to (i) enhance the growth of the industry, (ii) enhance the growth of local game developers, and (iii) introduce measures to protect players. TRAI released its recommendations in response to the consultation paper in June 2024, recommending, inter alia, promotion and facilitation of local Indian gaming content, incentives to attract skilled gamers, content creators and industry professionals to make India a “Gaming Content Hub”.
10. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), comes into effect from 1 July 2024.
The BNS has expanded the definition of petty organised crime to include (i) unauthorised sale of tickets, and (ii) unauthorised betting or gambling by a member of a group or gang, either by themselves or jointly with others. This is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year which may extend to seven years and a fine.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. ISAMRA has signed a Bilateral Agreement with PPL UK for performance royalties from & to India.
The Indian Singers’ and Musicians’ Rights Association (ISAMRA) signed a bilateral agreement with PPL UK to collect royalties on behalf of their performer members in India and vice versa where PPL UK (the organisation that licenses use of recorded music for public performance and broadcast in the UK) will be collecting royalties on behalf of ISAMRA performer members in the territory of UK.
This new partnership with PPL UK means that ISAMRA’S members will start receiving royalties from PPL UK that are generated in the territory of UK. Under this Bilateral Agreement, the UK performers will also start receiving payments for the use of their recorded music generated in India.
This follows the agreement of 2023 between ISAMRA (formerly ISRA) and Indian Music Industry (IMI), that represents over 200 Indian record labels. Under this deal, ISAMRA will be receiving up to 25% of public performance revenue from sound recordings collected by PPL India (unaffiliated with PPL UK) for distribution to performers. In 2022, PPL India reported collections of ₹164 crore (approx. £15.5M) and expects significant growth as music licensing awareness increases.
Read more about it here.
2. Delhi HC has observed that retweeting defamatory content equals publication for the purpose of Section 499 IPC.
The Delhi High Court, declared that each retweet of defamatory content on social media constituted “publication” and fell under the purview of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with defamation.
These observations were made while hearing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against summons issued to him in a 2019 defamation complaint filed by Vikas Sankritayan, who operates the social media post ‘I Support Narendra Modi’. In 2018, Sankritayan had filed a defamation complaint against Kejriwal for retweeting YouTuber Dhruv Rathee’s comment.
The Court upheld the summon orders and refused to quash the defamation case observing that retweeting defamatory content amounted to defamation. This was because retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on Twitter, and projecting it to be as if it is his own views, would prima facie attract liability under Section 499 of IPC.
The Court highlighted that that the impact of defamatory content may be less severe if retweeted by an individual with negligible followers or limited influence, however, when a public figure, particularly one with a political standing, tweets or retweets a defamatory post, the stakes and repercussions escalate given the broader implications on society. The audience, therefore, becomes the citizenry at large, whose opinions and decisions may be influenced by the information they consume, including defamatory statements published on social media.
Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State and Anr.
Citation: CRL. M.C. 6347/2019
You can download the order here.
3. CCI holds Google’s User Choice Billing system as unfair.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had prima facie determined a violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act by Google’s Play Store Billing policy regarding in-app purchases and paid apps. The CCI had directed an investigation by the Director General under Section 26(1) of the Act. The order, issued by CCI Chairperson Ravneet Kaur along with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag, stated: “the Commission is of the prima facie view that Google has violated the provisions of Section 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), and 4(2)(c) of the Act, as elaborated supra, which warrants detailed investigation.”
The Informants, which included People Interactive India Private Limited (the operator of Shaadi.com and Sangam.com), Mebigo Labs Private Limited (the owner of Kuku FM), and the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation & Indian Digital Media Industry Foundation (operators or managers of websites and applications related to television and digital media industries), had lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
Their grievance concerned Google’s updated payment policy regarding its proprietary app store, specifically the Google Play Store. The Informants had alleged that Google was leveraging its dominant position in the relevant market, thereby contravening Section 4 of the Act. According to the Informants, Google was providing users with an illusory choice through the Users Choice Billing (UCB) system, allowing them to opt for an alternative billing option alongside Google Play’s billing system. Against this backdrop, the Informants requested an inquiry into Google’s conduct among other prayers.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded with prima facie finding that Google’s conduct amounted to the imposition of ‘unfair service fee’ on app developers, constraining the growth of the app market, and denying or obstructing market access to developers.
Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Alphabet Inc.
Citation: Case No. 37 of 2022.
You can read the order here.
4. Supreme Court held that trailers of movies do not constitute any promise or offer to the viewers.
In an appeal filed by Yash Raj Films (YRF) against the order passed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000, the Supreme Court, setting aside the NCDRC’s order, held that promotional trailers did not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance.
The appeal was filed when NCDRC imposed the penalty on YRF for excluding the song ‘Jabra Fan’ from its 2016’s Shah Rukh Khan starrer ‘Fan’. The complainant had claimed that they went to watch the movie for the song ‘Jabra Fan’ which was missing from the movie. The NCDRC had held that exclusion of the song was an act of deceiving the consumers and would amount to unfair trade practice.
The Supreme Court, however, held that promotional trailers are not advertisement and the same by itself is not an offer and neither intends nor can it create a contractual relationship. The transaction was limited to the consumer purchasing the ticket and watching the movie. Further, the Bench held that the promotional trailer does not fall under any of the instances of “unfair method or unfair and deceptive practice”.
Title: Yash Raj Films Private Limited V. Afreen Fatima Zaidi & Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4422/2024 (Arising Out Of Slp (C) No. 14475/2021)
You can read the order here.
You can read our detailed article on this case here.
5. Delhi High Court Secured Endemol’s Dues Amid Sale of MX Player
Endemol Shine India Limited, known for reality shows like ‘MasterChef’ and ‘Bigg Boss,’ had filed a petition against MX Media and Entertainment PTE Ltd (“MX”), the owner of MX Player, in the Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Endemol had claimed non-payment of dues for producing ‘Kumite 1 Warrior Hunt’ under a Line Production Facilitation Agreement. Despite Endemol fulfilling its contractual obligations and MX monetizing the program, no settlement was reached, leading Endemol to invoke arbitration.
Due to ongoing liquidation proceedings being carried out against MX in Singapore, and as MX was going to sell its key assets to Amazon as per their claim, the Delhi High Court directed MX to retain Rs. 2.65 crore from its asset sale proceeds to cover the principal amount owed to Endemol.
You can read more about it here.
6. Punjab and Haryana High Court granted relief to Shehnaz Gill and held that an agreement was not binding because one party had superior bargaining power.
In a revision petition filed against the order dated 29-08-2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (‘the Appellate Court’), Gurbir Singh, J., stated that in the present case, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioners rescinding the Agreement dated 25-09-2019 (‘the agreement’) on the grounds that it was the result of misrepresentation and fraud. Petitioners did not take any action or provide notice to the respondent in order for her to meet her contract obligations. The petitioners’ silence proved that they believed the agreement had been canceled, as stated by the respondent.
The Court noted that in the current case, the conditions of the agreement in question were clearly unjust, as a result of one party having greater bargaining power and the other party being in a highly inferior position with low bargaining power. As a result, the agreement could not be considered prima facie legal and binding on the respondent. Thus, the Court denied the review petition.
Title: Sajjan Kumar Duhan v. Shehnaz Kaur
Citation: CR No.1855 of 2024
You can read the order here.
You can read our detailed article on this case here.
7. Bombay HC bars ‘Mrs. India’ winner from competing in other pageants, upholds contractual obligations
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained 2023 ‘Mrs India’ pageant winner, ,Sherry Singh, enforcing contractual obligations in the beauty pageant industry from participating in any national and international beauty contests during pendency of the suit against her. The case was filed by Mrs. Mohini Satyendra Sharma, the sole proprietor of “Mrs. India Inc.,” which conducts pageants under the brand name “Mrs. India” and holds various international franchise licenses.
The organization’s terms and conditions explicitly prevent winners from participating in other pageants during their tenure and for five years thereafter. Sharma submitted that Sherry Singh was going to participate in the Mrs. Bharat Universe 2024 pageant scheduled in South Korea. Justice Doctor observed that despite being given ample opportunity since April 2024, Singh had not filed any response to the interim application. The court stated, “Having heard Mr. Shah as also having gone through the Terms and Conditions relied upon… I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of ad interim relief. This is more so, since No.3, Mrs. Sherry Singh, though served, has chosen not to appear today”
Title: Mohini Satyendra Sharma v. Priya Saggi
Citation: Interim Application (L) No. 11339 Of 2024 In Suit (L) No. 11338 Of 2024
You can read the order here.
8. OYO and guest house directed to pay over INR 16 lakhs for dashing customer’s NLU dream
OYO founder, Ritesh Agarwal, and a guest home in Chennai had been ordered by a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, to pay over INR 16 Lakh in compensation to a man who was not given a room despite making an advance online reservation. 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).
You can read more about it here.
9. DHC Imposed a huge …. INR 217 Crores as Damages in a Patent Dispute
The Delhi High Court in Communication Components Antenna v. Mobi Antenna Technologies, awarded Canadian company Communication Components Antenna Inc. (CCAI) a staggering INR 217 Crores (US$26.1 million) in compensatory damages. This came after the Court found Chinese corporation Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. guilty of infringing on CCAI’s patent for innovative telecom antenna technology. Judge Jyoti Singh delivered the verdict on May 16, 2024, following a thorough examination of evidence from both parties. The case centered on CCAI’s Indian Patent No. IN240893, titled “Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency,” which pertained to a novel design for telecom antennas that allows for adjustable beam patterns, enhancing spectrum efficiency. Mobi was accused of violating this patent, and the Court agreed, finding their actions constituted patent infringement. To determine the appropriate compensation for CCAI, the Court focused on the lost profits incurred due to Mobi’s infringement. The evidence indicated that CCAI lost a significant market share amounting to 47,355 units, with a profit margin of $550 per unit. This calculation resulted in a damage award of ₹217,47,78,375 (approximately ₹217 crores or US$26.1 million).
Title: Communication Component Antenna Inc v. Mobi Antenna Technologies
Citation: CS (COMM) 977/2016.
You can read more about it here.
10. Ticket Scalping
The issue of Ticket Scalping was an important highlight this year. Ticket Scalping is the practice of using bots to bulk buy tickets from licensed sources and then selling them for a profit. This practice came into light in the recent Diljit Dosanjh and Coldplay concerts, where allegations of ticket scalping were made to the respective entities selling their tickets. We have written on this aspect in detail in our article, you can read it here.
Here are a few key highlights this year touching on this aspect:
11. Diljit Dosanjh Served Legal Notice Over Alleged Ticket Price Manipulation
Singer-actor Diljit Dosanjh made headlines after being served with a legal notice for allegedly manipulating ticket prices for his Dil-Luminati concert in Delhi. The notice was issued by a law student who had claimed that she was unable to purchase a ticket due to unfair practices by the organizers.
It was alleged that the concert organizers manipulated ticket availability, leading to scalping and inflated prices. It was also mentioned that although ticket sales were scheduled to start on September 12 at 1 pm, passes were made available a minute earlier and had sold out immediately.
You can read more about it here.
12. Zomato served legal notice to Viagogo for unauthorized Diljit Dosanjh concert ticket sales
Viagogo, a multinational ticket exchange platform, was found reselling tickets for both Coldplay and Diljit Dosanjh at exorbitant prices. In response, Zomato’s ticket platform, Zomato Live, had sent a legal notice to Viagogo for unauthorized sales of Diljit Dosanjh concert tickets, as Zomato was the official partner for selling tickets to the singer’s concert. Zomato Live had also filed cybercrime complaints against several other secondary ticket platforms for similar issues.
You can read more about it here.
13. Coldplay Concert Ticket Controversy: Lawyer had filed Complaint Against BookMyShow
A lawyer had filed a police complaint against BookMyShow, Live Nation, and other promoters of the upcoming Coldplay concert in Navi Mumbai, alleging black marketing of tickets. The complainant was logged out while attempting to book tickets on September 22, prompting him to investigate and uncover similar experiences among others.
The complaint, now under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai police, claimed that BookMyShow and Live Nation used ticket bots to create artificial digital queues, blocking genuine fans from purchasing tickets. Vyas also alleged that a large number of tickets were diverted to the secondary marketplace, Viagogo, where they were being sold at inflated prices — up to 50 times higher than their original price. The complaint called for an FIR against BookMyShow, Live Nation, and their key personnel for offences such as cheating, organised crime, and criminal breach of trust.
You can read more about it here.
14. PIL was filed in Bombay High Court against seeking guidelines to curb ticket scalping and black marketing
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking guidelines to curb black marketing and ticket scalping at major events in the backdrop of alleged foul play during the online tickets sale for British band Coldplay’s highly anticipated concert in Mumbai in January 2025. The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing before the division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar who has posted the hearing after Diwali vacation.
You can read more about it here.
15. ED Raids Uncover Ticketing Scam for Coldplay and Diljit Dosanjh Concerts Across India
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) raided locations in five cities—Delhi, Mumbai, Jaipur, Chandigarh, and Bangalore—exposing unauthorized ticket resales and scams related to Coldplay’s and Diljit Dosanjh’s concerts. The investigation revealed that tickets, which sold out quickly on official platforms, were resold on secondary markets at inflated prices. BookMyShow filed FIRs against several suspects involved. Seized devices and SIM cards are being analyzed for money laundering links.
You can read more about it here.
16. Saregama Sues Emami In Delhi High Court Over ‘Unlicensed’ Use Of ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ Song For Advertising Shampoo
Saregama India Limited has filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain Emami Limited from using the song “Udi Jab Jab Zulfein” for advertising its product “Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo” allegedly without license.
Saregama argued that they were assigned rights to the literary, musical, and sound recording works of the film “Naya Daur” through an agreement dated October 17, 1955, giving them exclusive rights under Section 14(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, to reproduce or create sound recordings of these works, which they claimed Emami infringed upon by using the song in an advertisement. They filed the suit promptly upon discovering the infringement in June 2024. In contrast, Emami contended that the agreement only granted sound recording rights, which expired 60 years after the film’s release on August 15, 1957, per Sections 26 and 27 of the Copyright Act, 1957, thereby expiring on August 15, 2017. Emami also argued that a letter dated May 31, 2007, from BR Films Pvt. Limited, was not an assignment agreement, and thus, Saregama could not claim ownership of the song. Nevertheless, Emami offered to deposit ₹10 lakhs with the court as a show of good faith and willingness to pay the actual owner. Saregama submitted that it charges approximately ₹ 40-50 Lacs per annum for such licenses. However, the aforesaid figure was disputed by Emami.
Justice Mini Pushkarna issued summons in the suit and issued notice on Saregama’s application seeking interim injunction in the matter.
Emami has been directed. (as an interim arrangement) to deposit a sum₹10 of Lacs with the Registry of the Court, within a period of two weeks. Saregama has been directed to submit documents, along with an affidavit, with respect to the amounts which are charged by it with regards to the license of similar nature, as in the present case.
Read order here.
17. 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
18. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 13thSeptember 2024 releases draft Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules, 2024
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 13th September 2024 released the draft Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules, 2024, (“Draft Amendment Rules”) under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. (“Act”) These Draft Amendment Rules amend the existing rules and aim to mandate the display of non-skippable anti-tobacco health spots and disclaimers about the harmful effects of tobacco use for online curated content platforms. Read our detailed post here.
19. Trademark Dispute Unfolds in Bombay High Court over ‘Mr. Bean’ Brand
The Bombay High Court in the case of Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park, has issued a temporary injunction restraining Mr. Bean Trampoline Park near Lonavala from utilizing the ‘Mr. Bean’ trademark and associated artwork in any capacity. Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Ltd, a UK-based company, has filed this trademark suit against Mr. Bean Trampoline Park, a proprietorship firm located in India. The contention centered around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, with Tiger Aspect asserting its rights over the renowned global brand ‘Mr. Bean’.
The matter initiated in June 2023, where after Tiger Aspect discovered the theme park’s use of its ‘Mr Bean’ trademark, it sent cease-and-desist notices issued by the plaintiff, yet the defendant’s response remained inadequate. Although the theme park removed its website, it was later discovered that Mr Bean Trampoline Park had filed a trademark application for ‘Mr Bean’ device mark. The next hearing is on June 14.
(Read here)
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.
Saregama Secures Interim Injunction Against Movie World Visual Media
The Delhi High Court granted Saregama India Limited an ex parte ad interim injunction, preventing Movie World Visual Media Limited from using its copyrighted music and literary works. This ruling comes in response to allegations that Movie World has been illegally exploiting Saregama’s content for four decades on various digital platforms. The court’s decision highlights Saregama’s long-standing ownership claims over these works, dating back to assignments made from 1965 to 1988 with original producers. The court recognized the need to protect Saregama’s rights, considering the potential irreparable damage and negative impact on Saregama’s business and reputation if the infringement continued. The matter is next listed on May 13, 2025.
Read order here
Delhi High Court protects personality rights of Telugu actor Mohan Babu
Justice Mini Pushkarna, who heard the case, noted that Mohan Babu had made a prima facie case for interim relief. The Court added that irreparable damage may ensue if an order is not passed to restrain others (defendants) from misusing Babu’s personality rights.
The Court has restrained various social media accounts, Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots as well as e-commerce websites from misusing the actor’s name, voice or image.
The case will come up for hearing next in May 2025.
[Manchu Bhaktavatsalam Naidu Alias Mohan Babu Vs Phanmantu & Ors- order here].
