Court appointed amici curiae say that Delhi High Court has Jurisdiction to hear ANI’s Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI
The Delhi High Court has jurisdiction over ANI’s copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, as per two court-appointed amici curiae, since ANI’s principal place of business is in New Delhi. While they agreed on jurisdiction under the Indian Copyright Act, they differed on whether OpenAI’s use of ANI’s data was copyright infringement or “fair use.” The case, a first of its kind in India, questions whether training AI models on copyrighted material without consent is lawful. The amici also raised concerns about OpenAI’s opt-out policy and whether AI systems can “unlearn” copyrighted content. The court will also decide if data storage and response generation using ANI’s content amount to copyright infringement.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt Ltd V/s Open AI Inc & Anr
You can read more about it here.
Madras High Court Dismisses Netflix’s Plea in Dhanush’s Copyright Case
The Madras High Court has dismissed Netflix’s plea to reject actor K. Dhanush’s ₹10 crore copyright infringement suit against actor Nayanthara Kurian over her Netflix documentary, “Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairytale”. Dhanush alleges that behind-the-scenes footage from his 2015 film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan, produced by his company Wunderbar Films Private Limited, was used without permission. Netflix sought to quash the case on jurisdictional grounds, but the court upheld Dhanush’s right to file the suit in Chennai. While dismissing Netflix’s objections, the court clarified that its observations would not impact the pending main suit, which will now proceed on merits.
Key highlights:
- Jurisdiction Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent
- The Madras High Court ruled that it has jurisdiction since a major part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.
- The film Naanum Rowdy Dhaan was produced and released in Chennai, agreements related to the film were executed in Chennai, and the disputed footage was filmed there.
- Since most defendants (except Netflix) are based in Chennai, the court has jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
- Doctrine of Election Not Applicable
- The defendant argued that filing under Section 62 of the Copyright Act excludes the plaintiff’s right to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
- The court rejected this, holding that the two provisions are cumulative and not mutually exclusive.
- Clause 12 provides an additional remedy, and plaintiffs can rely on both Section 62 and Clause 12.
- Pre-Suit Mediation Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
- The defendant claimed that the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to initiate pre-suit mediation, which is mandatory under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
- The court rejected this argument, holding that pre-suit mediation is not required when urgent interim relief is sought.
- The plaintiff became aware of the copyright violation only when the trailer for Nayanthara: Beyond the Fairy Tale was released on November 9, 2024 and immediately took legal action.
- Since the infringing content remained available, the court held that copyright violations constitute a continuous cause of action, justifying immediate legal action without mediation.
- Rejection of the Defendant’s Application for Plaint Rejection
- The defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking to dismiss the suit, was dismissed.
- The court held that the plaintiff had established a valid cause of action, and there was sufficient legal basis for the suit to proceed.
- Forum Conveniens & Suit’s Maintainability
- The majority of evidence and witnesses are based in Chennai, making it the most convenient forum for litigation.
- The Artist Agreement (dated August 27, 2014) between the plaintiff and the third defendant was executed in Chennai, and the disputed footage was filmed there.
- Since most defendants are Chennai-based, the court held that Chennai is the proper forum.
- Copyright Violation as a Continuous Cause of Action
- The court held that as long as the allegedly infringing content is publicly available, the plaintiff’s rights continue to be violated.
- This justified the need for urgent legal intervention rather than waiting for pre-suit mediation.
- Upholding Leave to Sue Against Netflix
- The court upheld the leave to sue granted earlier under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
- The argument that the plaintiff failed to make a jurisdictional averment in its leave application was dismissed, as the plaint itself clearly established jurisdiction.
Case Title: Los Gatos Production Services India LLP v. Wunderbar Films Private Limited.
Citation: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.251 of 2024
Order copy here.
Delhi High Court Upholds Saregama’s Copyright Over ‘Iniya Pon Nilave’, says Ilayaraja doesn’t hold copyright for the song
The Delhi High Court has ruled that Saregama India Limited holds the copyright for the song “Iniya Pon Nilave”, rejecting Vels Film International Limited’s claim based on an agreement with composer Ilaiyaraja. The court clarified that the producer of the original film, not the composer, is the first owner of the soundtrack’s copyright. However, the Court allowed Vels Film a license to use the song in its film Aghathiyaa since Saregama agreed to the license fee of ₹30 lakh. The Court further observed that Illayaraja as the music composer of the original song had no right to assign or grant the right in the lyrics in the song as he was not the owner. It was submitted by Saregama that they were the owner of the song and therefore license should have been taken from them.
Case title: Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors.
Citation: CS(COMM) 38/2025 & I.A. 1021/2025, I.A. 2163/2025
Order copy here
Delhi Riots Accused Seek Stay on Film Delhi 2020 Release
Sharjeel Imam and six others have approached the Delhi High Court, seeking a stay on the release of Delhi 2020, a film based on the Northeast Delhi riots, set for release on February 2. The petitioners, including riot victims and accused individuals, argue that the film’s release could prejudice ongoing criminal cases. They submitted that the film violates the Cinematograph Act and Contempt of Courts Act. The court has sought responses from the CBFC and the film’s producers, while a separate petition on the matter is expected to be heard soon
You can read more about it here.
ASCI Study Finds Low Compliance with DPDPA Cookie Consent Mandates
A study by Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), in collaboration with Tsaaro Consulting and PSA Legal, has revealed that only 6% of India’s top 50 websites comply with the cookie consent mandates under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA). Despite receiving 30 billion visits in December 2024, most websites lack proper consent withdrawal mechanisms, posing a significant compliance risk. The report highlights concerns over pre-ticked checkboxes, manipulative dark patterns, and inadequate third-party cookie management.
You can read more about it here.
Bombay HC Rejects CBFC Objections in Inn Galiyon Mein
The Bombay High Court has overruled several objections by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the film “Inn Galiyon Mein”. CBFC had sought modifications, including the removal of a scene where a flag is trampled, and dialogue referring to a neighboring nation. Justice Pitale ruled that the flag depicted in the film was fictional and did not represent any real nation or political party, making its trampling not objectionable. The court also found the dialogues, including “Goli maro salon ko” and “Ye desh aisa hi chalega”, acceptable in the film’s context. The filmmakers were directed to submit a revised version of the film for certification within a week.
You can read more about it here.
Mediation in ₹5,000 Crore Trademark Dispute between the Lodha Brothers
The Bombay High Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice R.V. Raveendran to mediate the ₹5,000 crore trademark dispute between real estate giants Abhishek Lodha and Abhinandan Lodha. The dispute centers on the use of the “Lodha” trademark, which Abhishek claims violates a 2017 family settlement restricting Abhinandan from using the name in real estate. The suit alleges breach of a non-compete clause, consumer confusion, and seeks damages and an injunction. With both parties consenting to mediation, the court has directed an initial session between the brothers, allowing the mediator to decide on further proceedings.
You can read more about it here.
Gurugram court awards Microsoft ₹55 lakh damages in trademark infringement, fake call centre case
A commercial court in Gurugram has ordered Retnec Solutions Pvt Ltd to pay Microsoft ₹55 lakh in damages for trademark infringement and operating a fraudulent call center. The court also awarded Microsoft an additional ₹20.6 lakh in litigation costs. Retnec Solutions misused Microsoft’s trademarks, including “Hotmail,” “Outlook,” and “Office 365,” to deceive customers into believing they were receiving legitimate technical support. The company employed deceptive tactics such as pop-up messages and cold calls, falsely claiming that users’ computers were infected with malware to sell fake services and counterfeit antivirus software. The court issued a permanent injunction against Retnec Solutions, prohibiting further misuse of Microsoft’s trademarks, and ordered the destruction of all infringing materials.
Read order here.
