Bombay High Court Denies Stay on Release of Sky Force Amid Copyright Dispute
In Sandeep Gangatkar v. Sandeep Kewlani & Ors., the Bombay High Court denied ad-interim relief to the plaintiff, who alleged that the defendants’ film Sky Force infringed his copyright in the script Fire Bird. The court highlighted the plaintiff’s delay in approaching the court, despite public domain material about the film, including its storyline and creative aspects, being available since October 2023, which negated his claims of surprise. It further noted that the plaintiff, an experienced industry professional, failed to act promptly and waited until two days before the film’s release, causing significant prejudice to the defendants, who had invested INR 250 crores and created third-party rights. Additionally, the plaintiff’s references to monetary discussions in the plaint indicated his intention to seek financial compensation, further reducing the urgency for injunctive relief. Citing precedents discouraging last-minute litigation, the court found the balance of convenience in favor of the defendants and scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 17, 2025. (Read order here)
Ram Gopal Varma Sentenced to Jail in Cheque Bounce Case, Warrant Issued for His Arrest
Filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has been sentenced to three months in jail by the Andheri Magistrate Court in a cheque bounce case that has dragged on for seven years. Varma, known for films like Satya and Rangeela, was absent from the hearing, prompting the court to issue a non-bailable arrest warrant. The case revolves around a ₹2.38 lakh cheque that was dishonored by Varma’s firm. He has also been ordered to pay ₹3.72 lakh in compensation to the complainant or face an additional three months in jail. Varma clarified that the case was linked to an old dispute with an ex-employee, not the cheque amount itself. The filmmaker, who has faced financial difficulties recently, was granted bail in 2022 but was told he is not eligible for any set-off due to the lack of time spent in custody during the trial. (See more)
Release of Diljit Dosanjh’s Punjab ’95 Delayed Due to CBFC Issues
Diljit Dosanjh’s much-awaited film, Punjab ’95, has been delayed. Diljit announced the news on Instagram, citing “unforeseen circumstances” but not revealing specifics. The film, set for a Feb 7 release, has faced delays due to issues with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which had initially demanded 120 cuts. The movie, based on human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, awaits an official green light. Though it’s set for an international release, its India launch remains uncertain. The film stars Diljit, Arjun Rampal, and others and is produced by Ronnie Screwvala’s RSVP Movies. (See here)
Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Hit with Arrest Warrant in Kerala Over Misleading Ads
Baba Ramdev and his Patanjali empire are in hot water after a court in Kerala issued a bailable arrest warrant against him, Acharya Balkrishna, and Divya Pharmacy for failing to appear in a case about misleading advertising. The legal battle stems from claims about Patanjali’s healthcare products, including unproven cures for high blood pressure and diabetes. This is just one of several cases across India, with multiple hearings skipped by the accused. The Kerala court’s move follows a warning from the Supreme Court, which criticized lax action on deceptive medical ads. Patanjali, known for its Ayurvedic products, now faces mounting pressure to back up its claims or face consequences. The case, set for February 1, could have profound implications for the brand’s credibility. (See here)
OpenAI Tells Indian Court It Can’t Remove Data Used to Train ChatGPT Due to U.S. Legal Obligations
OpenAI has told the Indian court that removing training data for ChatGPT would violate its legal obligations in the U.S. It argued that it is not subject to Indian court jurisdiction as it has no presence in the country. This comes after local news agency ANI sued OpenAI in Delhi, accusing it of using its content without permission to train its AI model. ANI also seeks the deletion of its content already stored in ChatGPT. OpenAI, which has faced similar lawsuits worldwide, including one from The New York Times in the U.S., maintains that its use of public data falls under fair use. The company previously stated it would no longer use ANI’s content, but ANI insists that the content in ChatGPT’s memory should be deleted. OpenAI’s January 10 filing emphasized that U.S. laws currently require it to preserve the training data while litigation is ongoing. We have commented on the issue here.
OpenAI faces new copyright case from global book publishers in India.
Indian book publishers and international counterparts like Penguin Random House and Bloomsbury have filed a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI in New Delhi. The Federation of Indian Publishers, representing major publishing houses such as Rupa Publications and S. Chand, claims that OpenAI used their literary works without permission to train its ChatGPT chatbot. They argue that OpenAI’s actions violate Indian copyright laws, despite the company’s defense that it only uses publicly available data under fair use principles. The case, filed in December, adds to a growing wave of global legal challenges targeting AI firms for using copyrighted content without authorization. Publishers worry that ChatGPT’s ability to generate book summaries and text extracts could hurt their sales, as users may opt for free AI-generated content instead of buying books. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle to define how copyright law applies to AI technologies, with the outcome potentially shaping India’s legal framework for AI. OpenAI, which has raised $6.6 billion in investment and expanded its presence in India, has denied the allegations. The company has also argued that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over the matter because its servers are based abroad. The Delhi High Court will hear the case on January 28. (See here)
Delhi Court Refuses FIR Against Art Gallery Over Allegedly Offensive MF Husain Paintings
A Delhi court recently rejected a request to file a first information report (FIR) against an art gallery displaying allegedly controversial paintings by late artist MF Husain. The complainant, advocate Amita Sachdeva, had alleged that the paintings depicting Hindu deities Hanuman and Ganesha were offensive. Judicial Magistrate, however, ordered that the complainant already had sufficient evidence, including CCTV footage, and directed her to proceed with filing a formal complaint case. The court clarified that no further investigation was required at this stage but mentioned that Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be applied to postpone the process and initiate an investigation later. The Delhi Art Gallery (DAG), where the paintings were displayed, denied the allegations and stated it would pursue legal action against Sachdeva for making false claims. The gallery also emphasized that the paintings were part of a private exhibition showcasing Husain’s original works. See here.
BIS Draft Guidelines Set to Streamline Advertising Standards for E-Commerce Platforms
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has introduced a draft of self-governance guidelines to enhance transparency and accountability in the e-commerce sector. The guidelines, titled “E-Commerce: Principles and Guidelines for Self-Governance,” focus on improving advertising standards, product disclosures, and ensuring authenticity on e-commerce platforms. BIS is open to stakeholder feedback until February 15.
Key aspects of the guidelines include Advertising Transparency (E-commerce platforms must clearly distinguish advertisements from other content, including editorial reviews and terms & conditions. Advertisements should be easily identifiable and compliant with regulations like FSSAI, ASCI, and Legal Metrology Rules.) Disclosures at Every Stage (Platforms are to ensure relevant information is disclosed clearly and accessible throughout the consumer’s decision-making process.) Authenticity of Sellers and Products (Platforms must verify the authenticity of sellers and ensure that product descriptions, images, and features match the actual product. Discrepancies must be addressed promptly) Fair Representation (Sellers’ digital representations, including reviews and prices, should be impartial and based on consistent criteria. Platforms must also explain the ranking parameters used for products and services.) (See here)
Brawl Between Billionaire Brothers over brand rights “Lodha” brand
The Lodha brothers are locked in a legal battle over using the “Lodha” brand. Macrotech Developers, led by Abhishek Lodha, has gone to the Bombay High Court, seeking to block younger brother Abhinandan’s businesses from using the name. Macrotech argues it owns the brand, with over Rs 91,000 crore in business and Rs 1,700 crore spent on marketing since 2014. Abhinandan, however, says the brand was given to him under a family agreement and insists his companies don’t use “Lodha” for real estate. He also claims to have helped Macrotech during a financial crisis in 2019, lending over Rs 900 crore. Macrotech accuses Abhinandan’s businesses of illegally registering the brand and wants them to stop using it. (see here for more)
NCLT Dismisses Akshay Kumar’s Insolvency Plea Against Cue Learn Over INR 4.05 Crore Dispute
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed actor Akshay Kumar’s insolvency petition against ed-tech company Cue Learn Pvt. Ltd. Kumar sought to initiate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) due to Cue Learn’s alleged non-payment of ₹4.05 crore from a 2021 endorsement agreement. The NCLT ruled that the claim did not qualify as ‘operational debt’ under the IBC, emphasizing that disputes arising from contractual breaches should be addressed in civil courts, not through insolvency proceedings.
Read order here.