Delhi High Court restrains use of Bharatpay trademark after BharatPe alleges infringement
Justice Amit Bansal, in an interim order passed on March 25, noted that just like BharatPe, Bharatpay (defendant) is involved in offering UPI and other payment services and the two trademarks are phonetically identical.
The court also found visual and structural similarities in the two trademarks, the report added.
“In view of the above, a prima facie case of infringement of trade marks and passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiff in its favour. Clearly, an attempt has been made by the defendant no.1 [Bharatpay] to create an impression that the impugned services rendered by the defendant no.1 are associated with the plaintiff,” the court concluded.
It, therefore, restrained the defendant company for using the trademark and the domain name www.bharatpay.net.
Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of Websites Illegally Streaming IPL 2025
The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction favoring Star India Private Limited, directing the blocking of several rogue websites that were illegally streaming the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2025 matches. This action aims to protect the broadcasting rights of Star India and curb unauthorized dissemination of IPL content.
Read order here.
Government Informs Madras High Court: Online Gaming Rules Currently Unenforceable Due to Absence of Self-Regulatory Bodies
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has informed the Madras High Court that provisions related to online gaming in the Information Technology Rules of 2021 are currently unenforceable. This is due to the absence of designated self-regulatory bodies (SRBs) required to verify online real money games. Additionally, the ministry stated that Aadhaar-based authentication can only be made mandatory through legislation enacted by Parliament.
MeitY Issued 1410 Blocking Orders Against Gambling Platforms From 2022-25
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued 1,410 blocking orders against illegal gambling websites between 2022 and 2025, as revealed in a response from the government in the Lok Sabha.
The government issued the response on March 26 following a question from two Members of Parliament (MPs), Amar Singh and Kirsan Namdeo.
“What Is Bhojpuri Vulgarity”: Court Slams Lawyer During Honey Singh Song Hearing
However, a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Tushar Rao Gedela took strong exception to the submission of petitioner’s counsel that there was “Bhojpuri vulgarity” in the song.
“What is this ‘Bhojpuri vulgarity’? Vulgarity does not have any religion or region. It should be unqualified. Never ever say Bhojpuri vulgarity. What is this? Vulgar is vulgar. Obscene is obscene. Tomorrow you will say Delhi is vulgar. Vulgarity is vulgarity. No region,” the bench said.
The court added that the petition does not lie under the realm of public law and it was not inclined to entertain it.
With the bench inclined to dismiss the plea, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition
Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Tamil Film ‘Veera Deera Sooran’ By 4 Weeks Over Alleged Breach Of Assignment Agreement
After the Court granted ad-interim injunction, both the parties amicably settled the matter and filed the settlement agreement on the same day. In view of the settlement agreement, the ad-interim injunction granted on release of the film was discharged and the film was released in afternoon of 27.03.2025
Oscar-Nominated Film Santosh Faces CBFC Roadblock, Director Sandhya Suri Reacts
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has blocked the film’s release in India. They have raised concerns over the movie’s depiction of police brutality, Islamophobia, and misogyny.
Santosh‘s director, Sandhya Suri, has reacted to CBFC’s directive. She said, “It was surprising for all of us because I didn’t feel that these issues were particularly new to Indian cinema or hadn’t been raised before by other films.”
Last year, Santosh had its world premiere at the 77th Cannes Film Festival in the Un Certain Regard section. The film was also UK’s official entry to the Oscars.
Mediation fails in Tesla Inc.’s trademark battle with Tesla Power India
The mediation efforts between Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc. and Gurugram-based Tesla Power India Pvt Ltd to resolve their trademark dispute have failed, the two parties informed a Delhi court on Wednesday, seeking an urgent hearing.
The single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee will hear Tesla Inc.’s plea on April 15.
Kunal Kamra’s video gets copyright strike on YouTube, he blames T-Series
Comedian Kunal Kamra on Wednesday accused music label T-Series of sending a copyright strike on his latest stand-up on YouTube. The 45-minute-long video, uploaded on March 23, is at the centre of a controversy over Kamra’s alleged ‘derogatory remarks’ against Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
In a social media post, Kamra defended his work as legally protected under fair use, emphasising that parody and satire should not be silenced.
Data for training stored overseas, copyright law doesn’t apply: OpenAI
Sibal argued that using ANI content to train its software did not constitute infringement under the Indian Copyright Act. Among the grounds why, the lawyer states that the Copyright Act applies only in India, while the data storage and software training for ChatGPT occurred outside India, where such activities are lawful.
“Training data used in the pre-training process is also not stored in India and is stored on servers outside India. No part of training or alleged storage is taking place in India and where it is being done is not unlawful. The copyright acts extend to the whole of India, but it does not extend outside India,” Sibal submitted.
During Friday’s hearing, Sibal further argued that even using data to generate responses for users did not constitute infringement, as the act does not prohibit data use for various purposes and the news agency cannot claim “special right” over “discovery of a fact.”
The next hearing is scheduled for April 2, when Sibal will continue his submissions on OpenAI’s behalf.
Does hyperlinking defamatory article lead to fresh defamation case? Delhi High Court answers
The question was being considered in a ₹2 crore defamation suit instituted by Ruchi Kalra, the co-founder of unicorn start-up called OFB Tech Private Limited (OFB), seeking injunction against The Morning Context for publishing an allegedly defamatory article.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that there can be no straightjacket formula to determine if the hyperlink is only a reference or if it is a republication for the purpose of defamation.
The Court held that if the hyperlinking of the defamatory article is done to enable the reach of the defamatory article or publication which could hamper reputation, then it would amount to republication.
The Court further clarified that if hyperlinking is done only for referring to the main defamatory content, then it does not amount to republication.
Delhi High Court Reviews Dabur’s Appeal Against FSSAI’s Juice Label Ban
In response to Dabur’s suit contesting the prohibition on “100% fruit juice” claims for reconstituted juices, the Delhi High Court has sent a notice to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The case’s judge, Justice Sachin Datta, declined to issue an urgent interim injunction but said he would examine the case thoroughly and set a hearing for April 1.
Real beverage manufacturer Dabur challenged the FSSAI’s order, claiming it misconstrued the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations of 2011 and the FSS Claims Regulations of 2018. By adding water to fruit concentrate, the company claimed that their reconstituted juices, such as Real Activ, restored the original juice composition without the need for added sugar. They asserted this process complied with FSSAI standards, justifying their “100% fruit juice” labelling.
Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 26) passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures.
CBFC Orders 17 Changes to Mohnalal-Starrer ‘L2: Empuraan’ Over Gujarat Riots Depiction
The makers of ‘L2: Empuraan’ have reportedly agreed to implement changes in the film following concerns over its depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The 17 changes include alterations to riot sequences and violent scenes. The film features a depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots, where one of the perpetrators is shown as the main antagonist—a portrayal that has led to political controversy in Kerala.
Dua Lipa wins copyright lawsuit over hit song Levitating (with a little help from Ed Sheeran)
A federal judge in New York has dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Warner Records-signed act, ruling that Levitating, released in 2020, did not illegally copy a 1979 disco song.
The lawsuit, filed by Larball Publishing Company and Sandy Linzer Productions, alleged that Levitating infringed on their copyrights for two songs: Wiggle and Giggle All Night, a 1979 disco song recorded by Cory Daye, and Don Diablo, a 1980 song by Miguel Bosé that the plaintiffs had acquired rights to through a previous infringement settlement.
In an opinion and order issued Thursday (March 27), U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted summary judgment in favor of Lipa and her co-defendants, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial similarity between protectable elements of the works.
The court concluded that this descending scale, along with one additional note that plaintiffs argued created a “signature melody”, were not protectable under copyright law.
The ruling heavily relied on the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, which appears to have been pivotal for Lipa’s defense.
That precedent-setting case, which Ed Sheeran won in November 2024, established that “basic musical building blocks like notes, rhythms, and chords are generally not copyrightable,” though a “work consisting of unprotectable elements may still be protectable as an original ‘selection and arrangement’ of those elements.”
The Sheeran decision provided a powerful legal framework that directly benefited Lipa’s defense, as Judge Failla explicitly cited it when rejecting the plaintiff’s claims that a descending scale plus one additional note could constitute protectable expression.
Kanye West sued by German singer-songwriter Alice Merton for copyright infringement
Kanye West is being sued for copyright infringement by singer-songwriter Alice Merton, who claims the rapper sampled her song without permission after her request for him to refrain, citing his controversial remarks.
Merton, who gained fame with her 2017 hit “No Roots,” claims West first approached her publisher, BMG, in February 2024, seeking approval to sample “Blindside.” After she denied the request due to his antisemitic and racist remarks, West’s team asked for an explanation. Merton’s representatives explained that her refusal was based on his values being incompatible with hers, especially due to her family’s history with the Holocaust.
‘Baby Shark’ Company Can Pursue Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
The South Korean global entertainment company that created Baby Shark children’s products won the latest skirmish in its trademark fight against e-commerce giant Alibaba.com.
Pinkfong sued to prevent Alibaba and its nearly two dozen associated online platforms from selling products that allegedly infringed its Baby Shark trademarks and copyright.
- Pinkfong alleges the products Alibaba promotes via email are not authentic or being sold by authorized retailers, and “clearly use Pinkfong’s Baby Shark trademark,” Ho said
- Defendants continued to use the Baby Shark trademark after allegedly becoming aware of Pinkfong’s trademark during or before 2019, Ho said, “plausibly” causing consumers to be “confused” about the source of the products
- Pinkfong’s six claims included contributory trademark and copyright infringement, as well as vicarious copyright infringement; the company alleged that Alibaba knew about the merchants’ claimed infringements, had the ability to control them, and financially benefited from them
The case is Pinkfong Co. Inc. v. Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Pte. Ltd., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-10967, opinion 3/27/25
Google to pay $100 million to settle advertisers’ class action
Google has agreed to pay $100 million in cash to settle a long-running lawsuit claiming it overcharged advertisers by failing to provide promised discounts and charged for clicks on ads outside the geographic areas the advertisers targeted.
Advertisers who participated in Google’s AdWords program, now known as Google Ads, accused the search engine operator of breaching its contract by manipulating its Smart Pricing formula to artificially reduce discounts.
The case is Cabrera et al v Google LLC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-01263.
AZ Factory Nabs Landmark Win in Blockchain-Backed Copyright Case
A French court has ruled in favor of AZ Factory in a newly issued decision over copyright-protected patterns, placing notable emphasis on the brand’s use of blockchain timestamps to prove ownership. In a ruling on March 20, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille sided with AZ Factory, finding that the Richemont-owned fashion brand launched by the late Alber Elbaz successfully demonstrated authorship and copyright ownership of two prints created by Elbaz and infringement of those prints by a fashion wholesale company, which was offering up garments featuring copycat prints without authorization.
The standout element of this otherwise straightforward copyright infringement case stems from AZ Factory’s use of blockchain technology to timestamp and anchor digital fingerprints of Elbaz’s original sketches – an approach the court deemed both legitimate and compelling. AZ Factory created timestamped records of the original “Love from Alber” and “Hearts from Alber” designs. Specifically, the company anchored the digital fingerprints (hashes) of Elbaz’s original sketches and drawings that appear on the garments onto the blockchain back in 2021 using BlockchainyourIP, an intellectual property protection service that uses blockchain technology to timestamp and anchor digital files in a tamper-proof and time-stamped ledger.
In the proceedings at hand, AZ Factory used the blockchain hosted records to support its copyright infringement claim (in lieu of copyright registrations) by demonstrating the contested designs were not only original but were also created and owned by AZ Factory well before the alleged infringement occurred.
The case is AZ Factory v. S.A.R.L. Valeria Moda, Tribunal Judiciaire de Marseille, 20 March 2025.
Anthropic wins early round in music publishers’ AI copyright case
Artificial intelligence company Anthropic convinced a California federal judge on Tuesday to reject a preliminary bid to block it from using lyrics owned by Universal Music Group (UMG.AS), and other music publishers to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude.
U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee said that the publishers’ request was too broad and that they failed to show Anthropic’s conduct caused them “irreparable harm.”
The lawsuit is one of several arguing that copyrighted works by authors, news outlets, visual artists and others have been misused without consent or payment to develop AI products.
Tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft (MSFT.O), and Meta Platforms (META.O), have said that their systems make “fair use” of copyrighted material under U.S. copyright law by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content.
