Delhi High Court Allows Release of ‘120 Bahadur’ Despite Objections; producers tell Delhi High Court they will name all Battle of Rezang La soldiers in end credits
The Delhi High Court has allowed the release of the film ‘120 Bahadur’ on November 21, dismissing a petition that challenged its CBFC certification for alleged historical inaccuracies. The court observed that last-minute alterations to the title or content were not feasible and noted that the filmmakers have included a tribute naming the soldiers portrayed in the film. The producers of the film told the Delhi High Court that they will acknowledge and pay tribute to all 120 soldiers of the Kumoan regiment, who fought in the Battle of Rezang La during the 1962 India-China war by naming each of them in the end credits of the film. Recording the producer’s submission that the full list of soldiers has been acknowledged, the division bench directed that the petitioners may verify the credits after release and, if any corrections are needed, they shall be incorporated in the OTT version.
Read more about it here.
Punjab and Haryana High Court Declines Plea to Rename ‘120 Bahadur’
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to halt the release of the film ‘120 Bahadur’ or consider a plea seeking to rename the film as 120 Veer Ahir, noting that a statutory review of the CBFC certification is already pending before the Union Government, which assured a decision within two days. The PIL alleged that the film distorts the historical account of the 1962 battle by sidelining the collective contribution of the regiment and portraying a fictionalised narrative centred on a single officer. The Court questioned the urgency of the petition filed on the basis of promotional material and held that the statutory process under the Cinematograph Act must run its course. The Bench disposed of the matter, After hearing all sides, the Court disposed of the matter, noting that “..the petitioner has filed revision under sec 6 of cinematographers act. The Union has assured that it will decide the representation in 2 days…” and permitted the petitioners to return if further grievances arise after the pending revision is decided.
Read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Cracks Down on Stream-Ripping Websites in Saregama Piracy Suit
The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining several stream-ripping websites that enabled users to extract and download music from licensed platforms, in a suit filed by Saregama India Limited. Observing that such services directly undermined copyright protection and deprived the rights holder of lawful revenue, the Court directed domain registrars to lock and suspend the identified domain names within seven days and furnish subscriber details in sealed form, while internet service providers were ordered to block access. The court held that stream-ripping constituted a serious violation by facilitating permanent unauthorised copies outside licensed ecosystems and found that Saregama had established a strong prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in its favour and risk of irreparable harm. The next hearing of the matter is on February 27, 2026.
Read more about it here.
OTT Industry Flags Practical and Financial Challenges in Draft Accessibility Guidelines
Major streaming platforms and industry bodies have expressed concern over the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s draft accessibility guidelines, which mandate at least one accessibility feature, either closed captions, audio description, or Indian Sign Language, for all new content. While stakeholders acknowledged the objective of enhancing access for persons with disabilities, platforms such as Netflix, Prime Video, SonyLIV and ZEE5 submitted that the proposed framework failed to consider either production workflows, licensing structures, or even operational complexity of large multilingual libraries that refresh daily. They stated that implementation would be unworkable for fast-turnaround episodes, with timelines described as overly aggressive.
Read more about it here.
Bombay High Court Restrains ACTC from Using PPL Music Without Licence
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining ACTC Studio Private Limited from using sound recordings owned or exclusively controlled by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) without obtaining a licence. The order follows allegations that while ACTC had previously obtained permissions for its events, it failed to secure a licence for an event held on 19 July 2025, amounting to copyright infringement. With another ACTC event scheduled for 15 November 2025, the Court granted urgent ad-interim relief, prohibiting any use or communication of PPL’s repertoire unless the required permissions are obtained.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Limited v. ACTC Studio Private Limited & Others
Citation: Interim Application (L) No. 32919 OF 2025 in Commercial Ip Suit (L) No. 32880 Of 2025
Read the order here
Eminem Seeks Cancellation of ‘Swim Shady’ Trademark Over Likelihood of Confusion
Eminem has initiated legal action against an Australian swimwear company over its use of the name “Swim Shady,” alleging it infringes and trades upon the goodwill of his trademarked persona, “Slim Shady.” In a petition filed on September 29, the rapper, Eminem, asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the company’s trademark, arguing that the near-identical name is likely to cause consumer confusion, falsely imply association, and dilute the distinctiveness of his brand. His filing states that substituting one letter is insufficient to distinguish the marks and asserts that the continued use of “Swim Shady” risks reputational harm, dilution, and exploitation of the value built through years of commercial use and promotion. The swimwear brand has been directed to respond by November 28.
Read more about it here.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction Protecting Ilaiyaraaja’s Personality Rights
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction in a John Doe suit filed by composer R. Ilaiyaraaja, restraining unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice and other personality attributes across platforms including television, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. It was submitted that Ilaiyaraaja’s name, titles such as “Isaignani,” and other identifiers have acquired distinctiveness comparable to unregistered trademarks, giving him exclusive control over their commercial exploitation. The plaint highlighted widespread unauthorised use of his persona and creative works by channels and influencers, arguing that such exploitation infringes his personality rights, dilutes his artistic legacy and leverages his reputation without consent or compensation.
Read more about it here.
Sreedevi Video Corporation vs. Saregama India Ltd.: Madras High Court Holds Declaratory Claim Time-Barred but Allows Injunction Claim to Proceed
In a long-running copyright dispute between Sreedevi Video Corporation and Saregama India Ltd. over audio rights in iconic Tamil and Telugu film soundtracks, the Madras High Court has partly overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the suit on limitation grounds. While affirming that Sreedevi’s prayer for declaration of ownership was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act due to Saregama’s rights challenge in 2010, the Court held that the permanent injunction claim was an independent remedy available under Section 55 of the Copyright Act and could not be rejected as a mere consequential relief. Emphasising that limitation bars the remedy and not the underlying right, the Court remanded the matter for adjudication solely on the injunction aspect, permitting the suit to proceed to trial on that limited issue.
Read order here.
Nesco Ltd Booked for INR 8 Crore Copyright Violation Following Complaint by Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd.
Mumbai’s Crime Branch has registered an FIR against Nesco Ltd after Novex Communications alleged large-scale, unauthorised use of copyrighted songs at commercial events held between 2023 and 2025, estimating losses of around ₹8 crore to Novex and several music labels; the case, initially processed by the Economic Offences Wing, now includes violations under Sections 51, 60 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and has been transferred to the Crime Branch for further investigation.
Read more here.
