Delhi High Court Shields News Broadcaster TV9 from YouTube Copyright Strikes, Affirms Fair Dealing and Bars Groundless Threats
In Associated Broadcasting Company Ltd. (TV9) v. Google LLC & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted summary judgment in favour of TV9, declaring that its use of brief video excerpts of natural calamities and global events within structured news programmes did not amount to copyright infringement, as the usage constituted fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act for reporting current events and was in any case de minimis in nature. The Court noted that the extracts were minimal, embedded within substantial commentary and analysis, and in several instances sourced under a valid APTN licence, none of which were rebutted as the defendants chose not to appear. Importantly, the Court held that issuance of YouTube copyright strikes and a subsequently voluntarily dismissed US lawsuit did not amount to “commencing and prosecuting” an action under the proviso to Section 60, thereby rendering the defendants’ threats actionable as groundless. The Court restrained the defendants from issuing further copyright threats and decreed the suit, while recognising that YouTube, as an intermediary, was not required to adjudicate the merits of infringement disputes.
Read order here.
Superstar not above law: Karnataka HC criticises Ranveer Singh for comments on Kantara deity but grants interim relief
The Karnataka High Court on February 24, 2026 told Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh that he cannot, by virtue of being a celebrity, hurt religious sentiments of a community and that he must, when making public appearances, remain cautious of his words and actions.
The remarks were made while hearing the actor’s plea to quash an FIR registered against him over his mimicry of a character in ‘Kantara: Chapter 1’ movie during the 56th IFFI Festival of India organised by the Government of Goa last year. In the event the petitioner is stated to have mimicked role of actor Rishab Shetty in the movie and referred to the deity the words ‘female ghost’.
The FIR was registered against Singh for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by mocking and insulting the sacred ‘Daiva’ (Bhoota Kola) tradition depicted in the movie.
At the outset it was admitted from Ranveer Singh’s side that Singh’s statement was “completely insensitive”. It was submitted that petitioner has been reckless and has tendered apology on mistake committed by him, after coming to know the importance of ‘Chamundi Daiva’ whom he had mimicked on the stage and had called it a female ghost.
Till March 02,2026 the Court has restrained the State from taking any coercive steps against Singh provided petitioner cooperates with investigation.
Singh’s plea challenges an FIR registered on the complaint of an advocate, under Sections 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 302(Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person) of BNS 2023.
The plea further seeks quashing of a January 23 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023 directing investigation into the complaint filed against the actor.
Singh’s plea also, in the interim, seeks stay of further investigation in the FIR. Section 175(3) BNSS empowers magistrate to order investigation into a complaint made under Section 210 BNSS after making inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
Delhi High Court protects personality rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the singer restraining multiple AI platforms, websites and e-commerce intermediaries from unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights.
The plaintiff mentions significant details as to how some of the defendants whom are AI platforms, utilised sophisticated machine learning algorithms, to create audio and visual contents, mimicking and reproducing the plaintiff’s features such as his name, voice, manner of singing etc. for unauthorised commercial/financial gains. The plaintiff claims that such platforms also clone various personality attributes of the plaintiff unauthorisedly.
Furthermore, the plaintiff gives detailed references to certain digital design platforms, which are indulging in sale of merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness and caricature. Moreover, E-commerce giants like Flipkart and Amazon, were also exploiting the plaintiff’s publicity rights, goodwill and reputation etc. by advertising, promoting and offering for sale various merchandising equipment.
The Court passed the interim order in a suit filed by Nautiyal against various defendants including john does (unknown entities), observing that the singer had made out a prima facie strong case for protection of his personality attributes. It added that the dent and damage to the image and personality of Nautiyal, prima facie, appeared to be real and present.
Read order here.
Kerala High Court Lifts Stay On Release Of ‘The Kerala Story 2’ Movie; Stays Single Bench Order
Timeline
- The Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 26, 2026) stayed release of the movie Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond, following pleas challenging its censor certification. The film was slated to hit the theatres on February, 2027, i.e., the day after the order for stay was pronounced.
- The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in appeal on Friday (February 27, 2026) paved way for release of the movie ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’.
Order of the Single Judge- ‘Potential To Disturb Communal Harmony’, CBFC asked to Re- Examine
The Singe Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerela High Court observed that the petitioners in two of the writ petitions have sufficiently proved their locus standi, individual grievances and the maintainability of the pleas. It was particularly noted that the producer was not keen on the Court watching the movie and therefore, the Court cannot substitute its view with that of the statutory body, i.e., the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The Judge further observed that the CBFC prima facie ignored the Central Government’s guidelines against presentation of visuals contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups and of visuals that promote communal, anti-national attitude or endanger public order.
A direction was passed to the Central Government to consider, within 2 weeks, the revision petition filed by one of the petitioners before the CBFC Chairperson. The CBFC and the producer was directed to ensure that the said movie is not released for public viewership for a period of 15 days from today.
Though the producer’s counsel produced a judgment saying interim relief cannot be granted when the High Court declines to entertain a plea exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in view of existence of alternative remedy, the Court felt that interim stay of the movie is necessary in the present circumstances and observed that it had not refused to entertain the plea.
Previously, though the Court had expressed its willingness to watch the movie before deciding the case, the producer was not keen on the same and his counsel had submitted that the matter can be argued on merits. It had thereafter heard detailed arguments.
The petitioners in the cases had argued that the certification to the movie was granted without duly complying with the statutory mandate under the Cinematograph Act. It was contended that the title of the movie combined with the narratives portrayed in the film, including forced conversions, terrorism, would stigmatise the entire region of Kerala. They argued that the content of the movie is such that to incite passion and communal violence.
Read order of Single Judge here.
Order of Division Bench: CBFC Viewed Film In Full, Certification Can’t Be Faulted On Basis Of Teaser Alone
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan stayed the single judge order which had stayed its release scheduled on 27th February, 2026 and posted the case after two weeks. The Court passed the order in the writ appeals preferred by producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah against the common order of the Single Judge staying the release of the movie for 15 days.
The Division Bench held an urgent hearing of the writ appeals at 7:30 p.m. on 26 February, 2026, just hours after the Single Judge had passed the interim order. After a detailed hearing, the Bench had reserved its verdict.
The Appellants had argued that it was the prerogative of the storyteller to tell the story that he wants and which social evil he wants to address in a movie. It was further contended that courts have, in the past, refused to interfere when other religions’ social evils were portrayed in movies and the same view should be taken in this case as well. It was particularly emphasised that when the prequel of the movie, which was based on Kerala alone, was subjected to litigation, before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, the movie was not stayed. Now, the present movie has protagonists from other States as well, including Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, there was no need for an order against release.
The Appellants canvassed that a movie cannot shake the tenets of a religion or cause disruption of communal harmony. He further argued that the present movie in no way denigrates Kerala. It was argued that commercial disruption can curtail free speech, and destroy the prospects of a filmmaker.
The Division Bench set aside the order and emphasised that it was admitted fact that the CBFC had viewed the movie in its entirety before issuing certification and the petitioners had not watched the full film. The Bench held that once the statutory authority has examined the film in full and granted certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, there arises a prima facie presumption that the Board has applied its mind in accordance with Section 5B and the relevant guidelines.
The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2018) 1 SCC 761], where the apex court held that once the certification is granted by the CBFC, there is prima facie a presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the guidelines including public order. Reliance was also placed on Atul Mishra v. Union of India and others [W.P.(C)No.181 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026] which reiterated that apprehensions of law and order issues cannot justify halting the screening of a film cleared by the expert body.
The court further noted that the producer had carried out insertions, excisions, and modifications as directed by the CBFC and hence the Board had duly applied its mind before granting certification.
Read order of the Division bench here.
Delhi High Court restrains sale of counterfeits of LexisNexis textbooks
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Law House and others from printing, distributing, or selling counterfeit copies of its legal textbooks. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim protection was warranted pending further proceedings.
The suit concerns three major textbooks published by the plaintiff: Pollock & Mulla-The Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts (17th Edition), NS Bindra-Interpretation of Statutes (Thirteenth Edition), and Mulla-The Code of Civil Procedure (Twentieth Edition).
According to Lexis Nexis by virtue of long, continuous and extensive use, the titles of these books along with the names of the authors, have come to be associated with it. The books are immensely popular among students and professionals and enjoy a substantial market reputation.
It was alleged that the defendants were engaged in printing, distributing, and selling counterfeit textbooks under the plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Court recorded that the investigation revealed that Parth Law House is a retailer of the infringing textbooks, while the other defendant is engaged in manufacturing and distribution.
The plaintiff contended that these publications copied both the text and the registered trademarks and that the counterfeit books were exact replicas of the originals, albeit of inferior quality. It was further argued that the distinction between the original and counterfeit books could be seen from the holograms, which in the counterfeit copies could be wiped out by rubbing, and from differences in printing quality, binding and QR code functionality.
Agreeing with the submissions, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained the defendants from publishing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in publication, sale of books that are substantial reproductions of the plaintiff’s textbooks, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and tarnishment of its reputation.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Protecting ‘TOI’ Mark Against Impersonating Social Media Accounts
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Company Limited restraining the use of the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, by unauthorised social media account operators.
The order passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that “The Times of India” was recognised as a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2024.
The company alleged that certain accounts, including @toimovies_, were impersonating its brand across Instagram, Facebook, Threads, X, and YouTube. It said the operators had “slavishly copied the plaintiff’s TOI unique red circular logo” to create a false association. It further alleged that the accounts were monetizing their reputation through a “calculated scheme of fraud”, including circulating a rate card for paid promotions. The company also claimed the accounts embedded a hyperlink to the official Times of India website to create trust.
The Court observed, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury to not only its reputation and goodwill but the financial and monetary loss to innocent intending advertisers from the public in general, which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted. The court restrained the operators, and anyone acting on their behalf, from using the impugned marks as trademarks, trade names or logos, or as part of domain names, social media handles, posts, or other electronic or physical media, including for content creation and reporting relating to the entertainment industry.
It also directed the concerned social media intermediaries to block, suspend, and take down the infringing accounts and to disclose the complete Basic Subscriber Information of the account holders within three weeks.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court Protects Swami Ramdev’s Personality Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, likeness and distinctive style in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and other commercial content.
In the order passed by Justice Jyoti Singh, the Court noted that Ramdev is a well-known and renowned personality in the fields of yoga and ayurvedic medicine, in India and abroad and that, owing to his contributions, he has earned a formidable goodwill and reputation.
On examining the impugned content, including AI-generated videos and altered images, the Court observed that the unauthorized creation and circulation of deepfake videos and social media webpages depicting the Plaintiff as endorsing products, cures or medicines with which Plaintiff has no association, in its prima facie view constitutes misappropriation and exploitation of the Plaintiff’s goodwill, amounting to passing off.
The Court further recorded that some of the digitally created publications contain statements or messages, endorsements in Plaintiff’s name, likeness and voice, which affect his public image and may tarnish his credibility and undermine the trust reposed in him. It added that the misinformation had wider implications.
Ramdev had submitted that he discovered “extensive and continuing instances of unauthorized digital use and misrepresentation as also exploitation of his name, image, likeness and persona across multiple online platforms, including YouTube, Facebook and e-commerce websites.
The Court also took note of specific instances, including a video uploaded on YouTube “showing Plaintiff endorsing a liquor brand, observing that such modified depictions ridiculed and trivialised his persona.
During the hearing, counsel for X Corp argued that several URLs constituted satire, parody and lampooning, which are permissible facets of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and submitted that some posts were merely “a commentary on these newsworthy events of public importance” concerning Ramdev’s past statements on allopathic medicine.
Meta Platforms submitted that a global blocking injunction could not be granted since that issue is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court. Baba Ramdev stated that he was not pressing for a global injunction at this stage and would restrict the relief sought within India.
Holding that the balance of convenience lay in Ramdev’s favour and that he would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, the Court restrained the defendants from using his name, voice, image, likeness or unique style for commercial or personal gain. The order expressly covers AI-generated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio and metaverse environments.
The Court also restrained the defendants from importing, manufacturing, selling or advertising goods or services using his persona in a manner amounting to passing off, dilution or copyright infringement. Specific directions were issued to Google (YouTube), Amazon India, Meta Platforms, X Corp and Pinterest to take down, disable and block identified URLs within 72 hours of receipt of the order. The Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were also directed to issue necessary directions to disable and block certain URLs.
Read order here.
Jammu court bars 18 cable operators from rebroadcasting JioStar shows, sports content
A court in Jammu has restrained 18 cable operators across Jammu & Kashmir from rebroadcasting live sports and entertainment content of JioStar India Private Limited without authorization.
Principal District Judge RN Watal passed the order on a civil suit filed by JioStar seeking permanent injunction and damages of ₹2 crore for alleged infringement of its copyright and broadcast reproduction rights.
JioStar submitted that it holds exclusive broadcast and distribution rights for over 100 television channels in multiple languages and has secured exclusive media rights for several major sporting events through agreements with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The company alleged that despite termination of its Subscription Licence Agreement (SLA) with one of the defendants (Take One) due to non-payment of dues and subsequent disconnection of signals in December 2025, it continued re-transmitting its channels and live sports content.
It was further alleged that the defendants illegally downlinked channels via DD Free Dish and rebroadcast them to subscribers, including coverage of time-bound events such as the TATA Women’s Premier League 2026 and the New Zealand Tour of India 2026.
Such acts violate provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, as well as the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, which mandate written authorization from broadcasters for retransmission, it was argued.
After hearing the counsel and examining the records, the Court observed that JioStar’s application for interim relief was supported by an affidavit and documentary material, including video clips showing alleged unauthorised broadcasts.
It, thus, restrained the 18 known cable operators, along with unknown cable operators (impleaded as John Doe), from retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, or communicating JioStar’s content.
The matter will be heard next on March 12.
Read order here.
Supreme Court stays copyright case over music in seven films including Salangai Oli
The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings in a long-running copyright dispute concerning the music of seven classic South Indian films, including Salangai Oli (Saagara Sangamam) and Shankarabharanam. The case, Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Corporation, concerns competing claims over ownership and exploitation rights in the sound recordings of these films, whose music continues to generate commercial value through streaming and television broadcasts.
On February 26, a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed the Madras High Court’s November 2025 order, which had allowed an injunction claim against Saregama to proceed. The stay halts further proceedings until the next hearing scheduled for April 2026.
Sreedevi Video Corporation had filed a commercial suit in 2014 asserting absolute ownership of audio copyrights based on two assignment agreements allegedly executed in July 2008 with Poornodaya Movie Creations and Poornodaya Art Creations. It sought a permanent injunction restraining Saregama from exploiting the recordings. Saregama disputed this claim, arguing that the rights had already been assigned through agreements executed in 1978 and 1979 in favour of Sea Records for 60 years, which were subsequently transferred to Saregama (then Gramophone Company of India Ltd.) in 2000 in perpetuity.
A Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed Sreedevi’s suit in 2022, holding that the declaration of ownership claim was barred by limitation since the cause of action arose in 2010. While a Division Bench upheld this finding, it allowed the injunction issue to continue independently.
Before the Supreme Court, Saregama argued that an injunction could not survive without a valid declaration of title and also challenged the legality of the 2008 assignments. The Court’s stay preserves the status quo pending examination of ownership and limitation issues.
Read order here.
No Monopoly Over Word ‘Forest’ Unless It Has Secondary Meaning: Delhi High Court Refuses To Halt Baby Forest
Holding there can be no monopoly over the word “FOREST” without stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary meaning, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxury Ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, allowing a newer entrant, Baby Forest, to continue using ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA’ marks.
In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench’s decision to refuse an interim order of injunction against Baby Forest, finding that the established brand could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the dictionary word “Forest.”
“’FOREST’ being a dictionary word, to claim any monopoly over the same, stringent evidence test of having required a secondary meaning in the same would be required from the plaintiff/appellant, the court clarified.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited filed the appeal to challenge a judgment of the Single Bench that refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the marks “BABY FOREST” and “BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA.”
The appeal challenged a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the appellant’s applications for an interim injunction. Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited submitted that it has used the “FOREST ESSENTIALS” mark continuously since 2000, achieving a formidable reputation with annual sales exceeding Rs. 425 crores. The company alleged that Baby Forest Ayurveda had dishonestly rebranded itself from its original corporate name to mimic Forest Essentials’ identity and capitalize on its goodwill.
To prove actual confusion, the Forest Essentials presented evidence including Google search predictions that associated the two brands and inquiries from luxury hotel chains like Hyatt and Oberoi asking if the companies were related. The appellant contended that because the products, such as oils, soaps, and lotions, are identical, a higher degree of distinctiveness was required for the respondent’s branding.
In response, Baby Forest submitted that “FOREST” is a common dictionary word used throughout the cosmetic and skin care industry to signify that ingredients are organic, herbal, or connected to Ayurveda. They asserted that as Forest Essentials registration is for the composite mark “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” it cannot legally dissect the mark to claim an exclusive right over a descriptive component. They further argued that it operates in a specialized niche of baby care products, whereas Forest Essentials’ primary reputation is for adult products, and that their respective logos, a sapling for the respondent versus a mature tree for the appellant, are visually distinct.
Relying on an earlier Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that the foundational principle of trademark law is the “anti-dissection rule,” which requires marks to be compared in their entirety rather than as individual parts. The Bench observed that since “FOREST” is a dictionary word, any claim of monopoly requires “stringent evidence” that the term has acquired a secondary meaning exclusively associated with the plaintiff. Applying the standpoint of an “average purchaser with imperfect recollection,” the Court found that the marks were not deceptively similar, noting that the overall trade dress and layout of the packaging were dissimilar enough to prevent widespread confusion.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending applications. The Court concluded by clarifying that its observations are prima facie and will not affect the final adjudication of the suit during trial.
Read order here.
[…] Source link […]