Supreme Court Rules Against PPL in Music Licensing Dispute with Azure Hospitality
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) had issued a cease and desist notice to Azure Hospitality Private Limited for exploiting its copyrighted works without a licence. After Azure failed to comply, PPL filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction. The Delhi High Court initially granted an ad interim ex parte injunction, later confirmed by the Single Judge. Azure appealed, arguing that PPL, not being a registered copyright society, could not issue licences under Section 33(1) of the Copyright Act. The Division Bench ruled in favour of Azure, finding that PPL, having surrendered its registration and failed re-registration, could not legally license sound recordings. The Court had directed Azure to make payments based on the tariff of Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL), a registered copyright society, instead of PPL.
PPL filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s judgment. The Supreme Court issued notice in the SLP and ordered a stay on the direction contained in paragraph 27 of the Division Bench’s judgment which has ordered Azure to make payments to PPL. The Court clarified that the stay would not restore the order earlier given by the Single Judge. The matter remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited
Citation: SLP No. 10977/2025
Read our post here
You can access the order here.
Delhi High Court Orders AR Rahman and Makers of Ponniyin Selvan 2 to Deposit ₹2 Crore in Copyright Dispute
The Delhi High Court has directed music composer AR Rahman and the production company Madras Talkies to deposit ₹2 crore in connection with a copyright lawsuit filed by singer Faiyaz Dagar. The case concerns the alleged copying of the Junior Dagar Brothers’ classical rendition of “Shiv Stuti”, in the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan 2. In an interim order dated April 25, 2025, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that from a listener’s perspective, Veera Raja Veera was “not just inspired but is, in fact, identical” to Shiv Stuti.
The Court further ordered that a special credit slide acknowledging the contribution of the late Junior Dagar Brothers must be included in all OTT and online platforms where the film is available. In addition, ₹2 lakh was granted to the family of the Junior Dagar Brothers in recognition of their contribution. The Court held that the impugned song was not merely based on or inspired by the original composition but was identical in its basic musical structure, with only changes in lyrics and the addition of modern elements.
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. Mr. A R Rahman
Citation: CS(COMM) 773/2023 and I.A.21148/2023
You can read the order here.
Recognition of Economic Times, Starbucks, and NDTV, as Well-Known Trademarks
The Intellectual Property Office has recognised Economic Times as a well-known trademark following an application filed by its holding company under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. After reviewing the request and the documents submitted, the Registrar of Trade Marks published the recognition in the Trade Marks Journal. The notification also declared Starbucks, and NDTV, as well-known trademarks.
Well-known trademarks are granted a higher degree of legal protection due to their wide recognition and reputation among the public. The law restricts the registration of later trademarks where an earlier trademark is well-known.
You can read more about it here.
Complaints Filed Against Anurag Kashyap Over Alleged Casteist Remarks; Filmmaker Issues Apology
Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap is facing backlash over his alleged remarks against the Brahmin community, made while criticising the reported censorship of the upcoming film Phule, a biopic on social reformer Jyotirao Phule. Following his social media posts, police complaints have been filed against him.
Amid the controversy, Kashyap issued an apology on Friday night, clarifying that he was apologising not for his post but for “that one line taken out of context” and expressing concern over rape and death threats directed at his daughter, family, and colleagues. In his statement, he said, “This is my apology, not for my post, but for that one line taken out of context and the brewing hatred… Brahmins, please spare the women — even the scriptures teach this much decency, not just Manusmriti.” Kashyap maintained that he would not retract his original post but asked that any criticism be directed at him alone.
You can read more about it here.
Madras High Court Concludes Hearings on Challenge to Tamil Nadu’s Online Gaming Law
The Madras High Court Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekhar has concluded oral hearings in the case challenging the constitutionality of Tamil Nadu’s gaming law regulating online real money games (RMG). Senior Counsel appearing for online rummy platforms, argued that online rummy for stakes enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g) and contended that the state’s five-hour curfew on gaming, mandatory Aadhaar verification, and regulatory actions constitute arbitrary and disproportionate restrictions. He also emphasized that the Union government holds exclusive authority to regulate online skill-based games under Entry 31 of List I of the Constitution.
The petitioners have challenged the law on three principal grounds: the imposition of a midnight-to-5 AM curfew on gaming activities, the requirement of Aadhaar-based verification, and the alleged jurisdictional overreach by the state. It was argued that online gaming regulation falls within the exclusive domain of the Centre, under the Information Technology Rules. The Court has directed the parties to submit their final written arguments by April 28, 2025, and the matter is scheduled for hearing the same day for recording the submissions.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Zomato in CCI probe
The Delhi High Court has issued notices to Zomato and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in response to the National Restaurant Association of India’s (NRAI) plea challenging its exclusion from the confidentiality ring in the ongoing antitrust investigation against the foodtech company.
The confidentiality ring mechanism, introduced in 2022, was intended to provide parties access to confidential information during regulatory proceedings while safeguarding commercial interests. The CCI has ruled that Zomato’s platform and delivery fees do not amount to an abuse of dominant position, providing relief to the company. The NRAI’s original complaint had alleged anticompetitive practices by major food aggregators, including deep discounting, bundling of services, high commissions, delayed payments, and unilateral contractual terms.
You can read more about it here.
Comedian Manan Desai Secures Sound-Recording Copyright for Signature Catchphrase ‘Jati Rehje’
Baroda-based comedian Manan Desai, co-founder of The Comedy Factory, has obtained a sound-recording copyright for his iconic catchphrase “Jati Rehje,” marking a first for an Indian stand-up comic. The phrase, meaning “leave at once” in Gujarati, became highly popular through Desai’s performances, with audiences celebrating his distinct accent and delivery. Concerned by others imitating not just the words but also his unique style, Desai took legal steps to protect the phrase, especially as he plans to expand its use in future projects like songs and other content.
Desai’s legal advisor confirmed that the copyright protection covers the phrase’s specific tone and style as delivered by Desai. Under this protection, any commercial use of “Jati Rehje” in a manner mimicking Desai’s performance would require permission or licensing.
You can read about it here.
Government Advisory on Media Coverage of Defence Operations
On April 26, 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an important advisory addressed to all media outlets, digital platforms, and social media users. The advisory emphasizes strict compliance with existing laws while reporting on defence operations and security-related activities. It specifically prohibits real-time coverage, live broadcasting, and dissemination of visuals or “source-based” information regarding defence operations or the movement of security forces.
The Ministry highlighted that premature or unregulated reporting can seriously compromise operational effectiveness, endanger the lives of personnel, and inadvertently aid hostile forces. Citing past incidents like the Kargil War, the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, and the Kandahar hijacking, the advisory underscores how unrestricted media coverage has previously had unintended adverse impacts on national interests.
TV channels were reminded of their obligations under Rule 6(1)(p) of the Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021, which strictly prohibits live coverage of anti-terrorist operations, allowing only periodic official briefings until operations are concluded. Any violations could lead to regulatory action. In closing, the government urged all stakeholders to exercise vigilance, responsibility, and sensitivity, stressing that national security must always be prioritized over competitive reporting.
You can read the advisory here.
Delhi High Court Records Settlement Between Mamaearth and HUL in Disparagement Case
The Delhi High Court on Friday officially recorded the settlement between Honasa Consumer Limited (Mamaearth’s parent company) and Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), resolving a dispute over disparaging advertising campaigns and social media posts.
The Lakme ad in question, aired on April 12, 2025, accused a sunscreen of misrepresenting its Sun Protection Factor (SPF), claiming it gave only SPF 20 instead of SPF 50. Honasa challenged these claims, alleging they were misleading and could harm its reputation. Following the court’s encouragement, both parties agreed to remove the contentious ads and posts. HUL modified its ad content and assured no future campaigns would mirror the disparaging nature. Similarly, Honasa agreed to take down related social media posts.
The court further directed that a 50% refund of court fees be issued to Honasa, as per the Court Fees Act, 1870. The court also emphasized that neither party would issue public statements on the case, though they are free to approach the relevant forums if needed for enforcement.
You can read more about it here.
