Ilaiyaraaja seeks transfer of copyright case to Madras HC
The Supreme Court on July 14 deferred the hearing on Ilaiyaraaja’s plea to shift a copyright case filed by Sony Music from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court. Sony had filed the case in 2022, seeking to restrain Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd (IMMPL) from using 536 compositions, claiming rights through Oriental Records and Echo Recordings, the entities that Ilaiyaraaja has long been in dispute with. IMMPL argued that 310 of the 536 disputed works are already under challenge in a 2014 Madras High Court suit filed by Ilaiyaraaja, where the court had in 2019 upheld his moral and special rights as a composer. The matter was listed before Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria.
Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd v Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd.
Read more about it here.
Supreme Court to hear plea on Udaipur Files release
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea by the makers of Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder challenging a Delhi High Court order that halted the film’s release just a day before it was scheduled to hit theatres. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producers, argued that the film had CBFC clearance and the High Court stay violates their fundamental rights. The Delhi High Court had passed an interim order for stay on release of the films, in lieu of petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and journalist Prashant Tandon, who raised concerns over public order and communal harmony. The stay will continue until the Centre decides on a revision application challenging the film’s certification.
Read more about it here.
Bombay HC restrains impersonator misusing Sonu Nigam’s name on X
The Bombay High Court has granted relief to singer Sonu Nigam in a digital impersonation case, passing an ex-parte interim order restraining a criminal lawyer, named ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’, from using the singer’s name on X. Singh had allegedly posted politically and communally sensitive content under the handle ‘Sonu Nigam’, misleading the public and triggering backlash against the singer. Justice R.I. Chagla, granting an ad-interim injunction, held that Sonu Nigam is entitled to protection over his distinctive name, especially where its use by Defendant 1 amounted to misrepresentation. The Court clarified that while Defendant 1 may use his full name ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’ on X, it must be done in a way that avoids confusion, deception, or misrepresentation.
Case Title: Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh
Citation: Interim Application (L) No. 20631 of 2025
You can read more about it here.
CBFC assures Bombay HC it will decide on ‘Ajey’ certification in 2 days
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a plea by the producers of ‘Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi’ after the CBFC assured that it would decide on the film’s certification within two working days. The film, based on a book about UP CM Adityanath, had faced certification delays despite an application being filed on June 5 and a priority screening fee being paid. The petitioners alleged that the CBFC’s inaction, along with an unlawful demand for a NOC from the CMO, had caused commercial and reputational loss. The court, led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, noted that the CBFC had failed to act within statutory timelines and stressed that such applications must be decided without delay.
Case Title: Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd v CBFC and Ors
You can read more about it here.
Bombay HC quashes Maharashtra’s ban on online booking convenience fees
The Bombay High Court has set aside Maharashtra government orders that barred cinema operators and platforms from charging convenience fees on online ticket bookings. The Court held that the state lacked legislative authority under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act to issue such restrictions, and that the prohibition violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain, ruled that charging a convenience fee for online bookings is a legitimate commercial practice since it is a consumer’s choice. The petitions challenging the government order was filed by PVR, BookMyShow, etc., who argued that the charges covered technology and payment-related costs.
Case Title: PVR Ltd and Ors v State of Maharashtra
You can read more about it here.
Supreme Court orders transfer of all PILs on opinion trading platforms to itself
On July 18, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of all ongoing PILs and writ petitions concerning “opinion trading” platforms like Probo, TradeX, and MPL Opinio from the Bombay, Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh High Courts to itself. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed the registry to move all records to the apex court for consolidated hearing. These platforms, which allow users to stake money on real-world outcomes, are under legal scrutiny for potentially operating as unregulated gambling. The Bombay High Court had earlier adjourned related matters pending SC’s decision. Meanwhile, regulatory pressure continues: SEBI has warned investors, multiple states have taken enforcement action, and Probo faces a ₹1,500 crore GST evasion notice along with ED proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision to club and hear all related cases signals a crucial ruling ahead on the legal character of these platforms.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi court restrains Unacademy from using ANI videos, orders takedown
On July 14, a Delhi court restrained Unacademy from using or distributing video content owned by news agency ANI without permission. District Judge Hemani Malhotra directed Unacademy to remove the infringing videos from its YouTube channel ‘Pathfinder by Unacademy’ and ordered Google to block access to the same. ANI had alleged that Unacademy used three of its original news videos, that featured interviews and security footage, for commercial gain without credit or license. While Unacademy claimed fair dealing for educational use, the court found no justification for unauthorized use and passed an interim injunction, barring further publication or circulation of ANI’s copyrighted content. The case will proceed further as ANI has also sought damages of ₹5 lakh.
Case Title: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pathfinder By Unacademy & Anr.
Citation: 20 CS (COMM.) 514/25
You can read more about it here.
Madras HC has issued notice to actor Vijay and TVK over flag design dispute
On July 18, the Madras High Court issued notice to actor Vijay and his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), in a civil suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement over the party’s flag. The suit, filed by GB Pachaiyappan and his trust, claims that TVK’s flag closely resembles their registered red-yellow-red tricolour with a circular emblem, which they have been using since 2023 for social services and media initiatives. The plaintiffs argue that the design is both a registered trademark (Class 45) and an original artistic work entitled to copyright protection, and that TVK’s use may mislead the public and was adopted in bad faith.
Case Title: GB Pachaiyappan v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC awards INR 1.2 crore to Johnson & Johnson in ORSL trademark case
The Delhi High Court has awarded Johnson & Johnson approx. INR 1.2 crore in damages in a trademark infringement and passing off suit related to its electrolyte drink brand ORSL. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the defendants had copied J&J’s trademark, packaging, and branding through deceptively similar products like ORSI and ERSI, causing consumer confusion. The court found the products, trade channels, and consumers to be nearly identical, and noted the infringing parties had made only minor changes to the packaging. J&J had acquired the ORSL brand in 2014, and the court found that the defendants’ conduct amounted to blatant infringement and passing off. A permanent injunction was granted, restraining further use of the impugned marks and packaging.
You can read more about it here.
PIL against Prada dismissed by Bombay HC
A four-member technical team from global fashion brand Prada visited Kolhapur’s chappal market and artisan clusters. The visit followed public backlash over Prada’s recent leather sandals, which resembled the traditional Kolhapuri design. During the visit, the team took leatherwork samples, observed traditional handmade production processes, and met local artisans and officials. The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed against Prada for alleged design copying, citing lack of locus as the petitioners were not registered proprietors under GI law or directly affected.
You can read more about it here
SC moved over Tamil Nadu’s gaming law; professional poker player challenges the TN Regulations
A professional poker player filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025. The petition contested the Madras High Court’s June 3 judgment in Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v. State Of Tamil Nadu, which upheld the law, arguing it imposes arbitrary restrictions on his right to livelihood and personal liberty. Kumar opposes the state’s blanket ban on online real money games between midnight and 5 AM and the mandate for Aadhaar-based KYC by private platforms. He contends these provisions infringe Articles 14, 19, and 21 and were upheld without proper constitutional scrutiny. He also asserts that the state’s regulation intrudes into the Centre’s legislative domain under Entry 31 of the Union List and conflicts with existing IT Rules. The matter now awaits Supreme Court’s response on interim relief.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC grants Tata ‘dynamic plus plus’ injunction against dealership scams
The Delhi High Court has granted Tata Sons and Tata Consumer Products a broad dynamic injunction, empowering them to directly request domain name registrars to block fraudulent websites misusing the “TATA” trademark. Justice Amit Bansal passed the order after Tata produced evidence of an ongoing scam involving fake dealership and distributorship offers using deceptive websites. Victims were duped into paying large sums under the guise of fees like “registration,” “product deposit,” and “renovation charges.” The Court found the fraud systematic and exploitative, issuing restraints against unnamed defendants and permitting Tata to act pre-emptively against future misuse.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi HC restrains use of ‘Reliance’ and ‘Jio’ marks on e-commerce platforms
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Reliance Industries Limited by directing several e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and Flipkart, to delist products infringing the “Reliance” and “Jio” trademarks. In an order dated July 10, Court held that RIL had a prima facie case and that allowing infringing listings to continue would cause irreparable harm. The Court restrained sellers from manufacturing, advertising, or selling goods bearing these marks, noting that misuse of widely recognized brand names could mislead consumers and compromise safety.
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v Pawan Kumar Gupta & Anr.
You can read more about it here.
