Centre Withdraws Order For Cuts In Udaipur Files Film After Delhi High Court Queries, Will Decide On Certification Afresh
The Delhi High Court questioned the Centre’s authority to order six cuts to the film ‘Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder’ under the Cinematograph Act. On August 1, the Centre withdrew its cut order and agreed to re-decide on the film’s certification by August 6. The Court directed producers to meet with the government on August 4. It emphasized that its concern was the legal exercise of revisional powers, not the film’s merits, noting the Centre’s actions seemed like impermissible directions. The film’s release, originally June 11, is now August 8 due to this certification dispute.
Case against producer for forging Malayalam actor Nivin Pauly’s signature to get rights of film’s title
A case has been registered against Malayalam film producer P. A. Shamnas for allegedly forging actor Nivin Pauly’s signature to acquire the title rights for “Action Hero Biju-2” from the Kerala Film Chamber. Pauly alleges Shamnas used a forged document, bypassing a 2023 agreement that granted all film rights to Pauly’s production company, Pauly Junior. An FIR was filed against Shamnas for forgery. This follows an earlier complaint by Shamnas against Pauly concerning film rights. The dispute involves the sequel to the successful 2016 film “Action Hero Biju.”
CBFC demands major edits in Son of Sardaar 2
The CBFC demanded significant edits for Ajay Devgn’s film “Son of Sardaar 2.” References to Chinese President Xi Jinping were muted, “item” changed to “madam,” and “kuttey ki tarah” to “bahut buri tarah,” among other dialogue revisions. Despite these, the film secured a U/A 13+ rating with a 2h 27m 32s runtime.
Vijay Sethupathi Denies Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Files Cybercrime Complain
Tamil actor Vijay Sethupathi has vehemently denied recent sexual misconduct allegations circulating on social media and has filed a formal complaint with the Cybercrime Wing of the Chennai Police. The allegations, which surfaced recently, claimed inappropriate behavior. Sethupathi’s legal team stated that these claims are baseless, defamatory, and part of a malicious campaign aimed at tarnishing his reputation. The actor has sought legal action against those responsible for spreading the false accusations online, emphasizing his commitment to transparency and justice. The police have initiated an investigation into the matter based on his complaint. This move underscores the increasing use of legal recourse by public figures against online defamation and unverified claims.
Ruchi Gujjar slaps producer Karan Singh at film premiere, files police complaint alleging Rs 23 lakh fraud
Model-turned-actress Ruchi Gujjar allegedly slapped producer Karan Singh Chauhan with a sandal at the premiere of his film “So Long Valley”. An FIR was filed by Gujjar, accusing Chauhan and his team of defrauding her of ₹23 lakh. She claims the money was for a promised television role, profit sharing, and on-screen credit that never materialized. Gujjar now faces assault charges, while her lawyer plans a counter-complaint. The film’s director, Man Singh, dismissed the altercation as a “publicity stunt.”
Women Film Circuit files complaint with SWA about the lack of fair pay
The Women Film Circuit (WFC) has filed a complaint with the Screenwriters Association (SWA) regarding the severe underpayment of writers, particularly for “micro dramas” and short-form digital content. WFC founder Sulagna Chatterjee highlighted that writers are paid as little as Rs 1,000-Rs 2,000 per episode, significantly below SWA’s 2019 Minimum Basic Contract rate of Rs 11-12 lakh for film projects. The complaint points out that current SWA mandates primarily apply to films, leaving digital formats unregulated and susceptible to exploitation. WFC urges SWA to establish clear rate cards for all digital content to ensure fair compensation and address this loophole.
HC pulls up CBFC for delay in certifying film on Yogi Adityanath
The Bombay High Court has questioned the CBFC over its delay in certifying “Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi,” a film purportedly based on Yogi Adityanath. Producers Samrat Cinematics challenged the refusal, noting that the Cinematograph Act mandates processing within a week and screening within 15 days. They alleged arbitrary delay, claiming the CBFC demanded an “erroneous and extraneous” no-objection certificate from the Chief Minister’s Office. The film, originally set for an August 1 release, was stalled for over a month. The Court observed the censor board cannot indefinitely delay a decision, especially after charging priority fees.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Ching’s, Restrains Local Manufacturer From Using ‘Schezwan Chutney’ Mark
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Capital Foods (Ching’s Secret) against Pitambari Products, restraining them from using the trademark “Schezwan Chutney.” The Court found that Ching’s is the registered owner of this word mark and also holds copyright in its product’s artistic packaging. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed a prima facie case for infringement, emphasizing that the injunction specifically covers the use of the “Schezwan Chutney” mark, not the trade dress of Pitambari’s products. The defendant was promoting its “Schezwan Chutney” on social media. This decision reinforces trademark protection for established brands even when terms might seem descriptive. The case will be further heard in December.
Order here
GLC was ours before you: Justice Gautam Patel slams Principal for notice against podcast run by alumni
Former Bombay High Court Justice Gautam Patel has strongly condemned Government Law College (GLC), Mumbai’s principal for a public notice warning legal action against “GLC Law and Lore,” a podcast run by alumni. The notice, issued July 31, 2025, disassociated the college from the podcast for unauthorized use of “GLC” in its name. Justice Patel, an alumnus himself, sent a scathing letter on August 1, emphasizing GLC’s legacy belongs to its alumni and calling the notice “mean-spirited” and “disgraceful” for threatening students. He also offered legal support to the students if the college pursues action. The principal clarified the notice was a precautionary measure for brand protection.
CCI rejects ADIF’s complaint against Google Ads policies
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has rejected a complaint by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) against Google’s advertising policies. ADIF alleged Google abused its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions, including banning third-party tech support ads, restricting mobile-only ‘Call Ads’, non-transparent ad ranking, and allowing trademark bidding. Google defended its policies as pro-consumer and pro-competition. The CCI dismissed the complaint under Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, citing that the issues had already been adjudicated in previous cases (Matrimony.com and Vishal Gupta), and no new material circumstances were presented. This decision emphasizes the principle of res judicata in competition law, avoiding reinvestigation of previously settled matters.
Delhi HC Recognises ‘Nutella’ as Well-Known Trademark in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Ferrero
The Delhi High Court has declared “Nutella” a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in a suit filed by Ferrero. Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted Nutella’s global recognition, including by WIPO and INTA. The ruling came after Ferrero discovered M.B. Enterprises manufacturing counterfeit Nutella products, which the court deemed a mala fide attempt to exploit Nutella’s goodwill. Highlighting public health risks from deceptive edible items, the court decreed the suit in Ferrero’s favor, granting a permanent injunction and damages. This decision reinforces strong protection for widely recognized brands.
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University for trademark infringement
Columbia Sportswear has sued Columbia University for trademark infringement and breach of contract. The lawsuit, filed July 23, 2025, in Oregon federal court, alleges the university’s merchandise, particularly clothing featuring only the word “Columbia” in a bright blue, violates a 2023 agreement. This pact mandated the university use a recognizable insignia, its mascot, “university,” an academic department name, or its founding year alongside “Columbia” on apparel. Columbia Sportswear claims this breach causes consumer confusion and seeks to halt sales, recall products, donate merchandise, and receive triple damages.
CoStar sues Zillow for alleged copyright infringement of thousands of photos
CoStar Group has sued Zillow in New York federal court for alleged widespread copyright infringement of over 46,000 of CoStar’s real estate photographs. CoStar claims Zillow published its watermarked images more than 250,000 times, extending to partner sites like Redfin. CEO Andy Florance expressed outrage over Zillow’s alleged theft, citing CoStar’s investment in its image database. The lawsuit also references Zillow’s past liability in a similar case with VHT, Inc. CoStar estimates potential damages exceeding one billion dollars, possibly making it one of history’s largest image infringement cases.
Sony Sues Tencent for Copyright Infringement, Says Its Game Is ‘Slavish Clone’ of Horizon Franchise
Sony has sued Tencent for copyright infringement, alleging Tencent’s upcoming game, “Light of Motiram,” is a “slavish clone” of Sony’s Horizon franchise. Sony claims “Light of Motiram” copies Horizon’s gameplay, story, and artistic elements, potentially confusing customers. The lawsuit follows Sony’s refusal of Tencent’s 2024 collaboration offer for a new Horizon game. “Light of Motiram,” announced in November 2024, features “Mechanimals” and a post-apocalyptic setting, drawing immediate comparison. Sony seeks monetary damages and an injunction, confirming Horizon sales exceed 38 million copies globally.
‘Cheat software’ is not copyright infringing, but ad blockers may be, German court rules
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that cheat software is generally not copyright infringing if it only modifies temporary data in a game’s RAM without altering the original program code. This follows a CJEU ruling (Sony v. Datel). Regarding ad-blockers, the BGH’s stance is less definitive, but previous German court decisions, including an April 2018 BGH ruling, have generally found ad-blocking software like Adblock Plus to be permissible and not in violation of competition law or copyright, as they don’t unlawfully copy or modify copyrighted software but rather impact how content is displayed. The copyright implications of ad blockers are still under ongoing legal scrutiny, with some cases stayed pending CJEU decisions.
Apple Sues Apple Cinemas for Trademark Infringement
Apple Inc. has sued Apple Cinemas, a Massachusetts movie theater chain, for trademark infringement. Apple argues the cinema’s name confuses consumers, especially given Apple’s expansion into entertainment services like Apple TV+ and film production. The lawsuit, filed against a chain operating since 2016, seeks an injunction to force rebranding and unspecified damages. This action reflects Apple’s aggressive brand protection strategy and could set a precedent for trademark scope across industries, potentially influencing naming conventions in the entertainment sector.
SC Rejects Ilaiyaraaja’s Plea to Shift Copyright Case to Madras HC
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea by Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd (IMMPL) seeking transfer of a copyright infringement suit filed by Sony Music from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court. IMMPL had argued that a parallel case concerning 310 of the 536 musical works in question was already pending in the Madras High Court since 2014, and that it operated solely out of Chennai. However, the Supreme Court held that Sony’s suit had been filed in Bombay prior to IMMPL’s Madras petition and refused to allow the transfer, thereby permitting the Bombay High Court proceedings to continue.
Industry Groups Raise Alarm Over Proposed Telecom Cybersecurity Rules
Leading industry associations including IAMAI, NASSCOM, BIF, and CUTS International have raised serious concerns over the Department of Telecommunications’ draft telecom cybersecurity rules. The proposed amendments, they argue, significantly expand the regulatory scope to cover non-telecom entities such as OTT platforms, retailers, and even educational institutions under the new “Telecommunication Identifier User Entities” category. Key objections include the risk of regulatory overreach, potential conflict with existing IT laws, lack of adequate privacy safeguards, and substantial compliance costs—particularly due to the proposed Mobile Number Verification system that could charge entities up to ₹3 per transaction. Industry bodies warn that these measures may hinder innovation, disproportionately impact MSMEs, and complicate India’s digital ecosystem.
