Delhi High Court orders OTT platforms to add accessibility features
The Delhi High Court has directed OTT and content producers to include essential accessibility features such as subtitles, closed captions, and audio descriptions in their shows and films. The Court issued this order while hearing a petition seeking the inclusion of accessibility features including audio descriptions, same-language captions, and Indian sign language on OTT platforms for viewers with visual and hearing impairments. The Court further directed OTT platforms and film producers to incorporate these features in a specified list of films released on their platforms. Titles covered under this directive include The Buckingham Murders, Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3, Shaitan, and Article 370.
Read more about it here.
Akshay Kumar’s production house slaps ₹25 Crore legal notice on Paresh Rawal over Hera Pheri 3 exit
Paresh Rawal announced his departure from the upcoming film Hera Pheri 3, where he was set to reprise his iconic role as Baburao Ganpatrao Apte. The exit has led to legal tensions, with Akshay Kumar’s production company, Cape of Good Films, reportedly filing a ₹25 crore lawsuit against Rawal for alleged breach of contract. In response, Rawal’s legal team stated that there was no finalized script or formal agreement at the time of his withdrawal. Despite the controversy, Rawal has returned his signing amount, including interest as a goodwill gesture, indicating a desire to resolve the matter amicably.
Allahabad High Court Urges Overhaul of Outdated Gambling Laws
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has highlighted the inadequacy of the colonial-era Public Gambling Act of 1867 in addressing the complexities of modern online gambling and betting. During a hearing involving allegations of online betting operations in Agra, Justice Vinod Diwakar emphasized the challenges posed by digital platforms, especially those with servers based outside India, which complicate enforcement efforts. Recognizing the potential mental health and financial risks associated with online gambling, particularly among youth and lower-income groups, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to form a committee led by Economic Advisor Prof. K.V. Raju. This committee, comprising experts in technology, finance, law enforcement, and taxation, is tasked with evaluating the current online gaming landscape and recommending a comprehensive legal framework. The court also referenced the UK’s Gambling Act of 2005 as a potential model for India’s regulatory approach.
Read more here
Tamil Nadu Gaming Authority issues notices on betting apps for regulatory violations
The Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (TNOGA) has issued notices to at least 25 online gaming companies for violating state regulations, prompting many firms to begin enforcing compliance. New measures include prohibiting player access to games from midnight to 5 a.m., warning pop-ups, cash limits, and time-restriction features. Though some companies have responded positively and are enforcing these rules, others remain non-compliant. TNOGA Chairperson M.D. Nasimuddin noted that action may be taken against persistently non-compliant apps, including seeking bans through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY).
Read more about it here.
Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on plea to ban illegal betting apps
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a complete ban on illegal betting apps in India. The petition also calls for stringent regulations on online gaming and fantasy sports, along with the enactment of comprehensive legislation to govern these activities. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh issued a notice to the Central Government, requesting its response. However, the court refrained from issuing notices to state governments at this stage.
As per online resources, the petition references an FIR lodged in Telangana against 25 celebrities and influencers for promoting betting apps, as well as reports of 24 suicides linked to online betting debts in the state.
Read more about it here.
Kerala High Court declines to quash cheating case against ‘Manjummel Boys’ producers
The Kerala High Court has dismissed petitions filed by actor-producer Soubin Shahir, his father Babu Shahir, and Shawn Antony- producers of the Malayalam blockbuster Manjummel Boys—seeking to quash a cheating case related to the film’s production. The case stems from a complaint by investor Siraj Valiyathara Hameed, who alleged that he invested Rs. 7 crore in the film in exchange for a 40% share of the profits, which he claims he did not receive despite the film’s commercial success.
Read more about it here.
ASCI urges regulatory clarity on Opinion Trading platforms
The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has released a white paper calling for clear regulations on opinion trading platforms, also known as prediction markets. These platforms allow users to bet on outcomes of future events, and their legal status in India remains ambiguous. ASCI highlighted that in some jurisdictions, such platforms are regulated as financial instruments, while in others, they fall under gambling laws. ASCI expressed concern over the advertising practices of these platforms, noting that they often make exaggerated claims of easy profits without adequate disclaimers, potentially misleading consumers.
Read more it here.
Delhi High Court: Common Names Like ‘Neha’ Can Be Trademarks If They Gain Distinctiveness
The Delhi High Court has ruled that common Indian names, such as “Neha,” can be protected as trademarks if they acquire inherent distinctiveness or a secondary meaning through extensive commercial use. In a case involving competing claims over the “NEHA” trademark for herbal products and face creams, Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that while common names are inherently weaker in legal protection, they can gain trademark status if consumers associate them with a specific source. The court highlighted the necessity of presenting credible evidence—like advertising expenses, market share, and consumer surveys—to establish such distinctiveness.
Read more here.
Delhi High Court: Mere Inclusion of a Mark in Trading Name Doesn’t Confer Trademark Rights
The Delhi High Court has clarified that simply including a mark in a trading name does not automatically grant it trademark protection. Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that for a mark to be protected, it must be used in a manner that identifies the source of goods or services and distinguishes them from others—a concept known as “use in the trademark sense.” The court noted that such usage must be evident in the public domain and not limited to internal documentation or preparatory activities. This ruling came while rejecting a firm’s ‘prior use’ claim in a trademark suit, which was solely based on a manufacturing license. The court held that a license indicates statutory permission but does not establish actual use of a trademark in commerce. The decision underscores that trademark rights arise through tangible commercial activities that build goodwill and consumer association.
Read more here.
