Ilaiyaraaja wins copyright battle against GV Prakash’s ‘Happy Raj’; Madras HC restricts use of ‘Pothuvaaga En Manasu Thangam’ song
Music maestro has been very strong in protecting the ownership of his compositions, and this has led to many legal battles over the unauthorised use of his songs. The veteran composer has never accepted that his compositions may be used without his prior consent, irrespective of the venture. The composer, Ilaiyaraaja, who has been pursuing this legal fight for quite some time now, won a major battle in court when the decided in his favor in a copyright lawsuit concerning the movie ‘Happy Raj.’
The latest case was filed after Ilaiyaraaja alleged that his iconic song ‘Pothuvaaga En Manasu Thangam’ from Rajinikanth starrer ‘Murattu Kaalai,’ had been used in GV Prakash Kumar’s film ‘Happy Raj’ without obtaining his consent. After hearing the matter, the Madras High Court restrained the makers from using the song in the film. The order came nearly three months after ‘Happy Raj’ was released in theatres on March 27, making it a significant legal development despite the film already completing its theatrical run.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Google’s Appeal Against Order Holding It Liable For Trademark Infringement Through Keyword Advertising
The Delhi High Court on 10th July, 2026 issued notice on an appeal filed by Google against a single judge ruling which restrained it from using the trademark “HINDWARE” as advertising keywords, holding that it could not avoid responsibility for enabling infringement through its keyword advertising tools.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Google submitted at the outset that the matter “cries out” for notice and interim protection. He said that the issue involved in the case is that when you use someone’s trademark simply as a trigger for search, will that amount to per se infringement? He said that admittedly, there is no finding of confusion in the single judge ruling. Singhvi added that two division bench decisions of the High Court have said that when you use someone’s trade name as a trigger, and there is no confusion, there cannot be any per se infringement.
The division bench comprising of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora however, refrained from issuing any interim directions of stay and simply directed the parties to file their written submissions and listed the matter on July 24 for final disposal.
The single judge, in the judgment pronounced on May 22, had directed Google LLC and Google India to jointly pay ₹30 lakh as nominal damages to Hindware Limited. It was held that Google cannot be permitted to shrug off responsibility by making available a tool that leads to infringement, and then turning around to claim that the said tool was not mandatory.
Hindware had filed two suits after discovering that competitors Grohe and Cera had purchased “HINDWARE” and related keyword combinations on Google’s advertising platform, causing sponsored links for rival brands to appear when users searched for terms such as “Hindware Sanitaryware”, “Hindware Sanitary” and “Hindware Sanitary Ware India.” Grohe, Cera and Omkara Infoweb later settled with Hindware, leaving Google as the contesting defendant.
Read order dated 22nd May, 2026 here.
Govt issues notice to Meta over Instagram child abuse ads
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a stern notice to Meta, demanding the immediate removal of all Instagram advertisements promoting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The government has demanded a detailed explanation within seven days regarding how these paid ads passed automated safety reviews.
It comes after a BBC Eye investigation found that Instagram has been running paid adverts promoting child sexual abuse material in India, some of which linked users to Telegram channels where the material was offered for sale.
Meta has said it has a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse material and is continuing to strengthen its detection and defences.
Telegram said it had removed more than 274,000 groups and channels related to child sexual abuse material in 2026.
The BBC set up a new alias Instagram account in India after noticing the platform was pushing sexually suggestive content even when users had not searched for it.The account followed 10 such profiles and, in less than a week, Instagram began showing the alias account paid adverts featuring adult pornography. Days later, it was also shown adverts promoting child sexual abuse material, some of which linked users to Telegram channels.
The company, however, called it “categorially inaccurate” to suggest it knowingly and deliberately targeted ads featuring children to users with an inappropriate interest in such material and denied prioritising revenue over safety.
Bombay High Court denies urgent relief to Phantom Studios in suit against JioStar over Queen sequel
The Bombay High Court has declined to grant urgent ad-interim relief to Phantom Studios India Private Limited in its suit against JioStar India Private Limited over the film Queen Forever, which Phantom alleges is an unauthorised sequel to the 2014 film Queen made in breach of the parties’ co-production and intellectual property arrangements.
Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an interim application filed by Phantom Studios in its suit claiming 50 per cent joint ownership of intellectual property rights in the film.
Counsel for Phantom Studios argued there was extreme urgency, since JioStar was likely to release the film or create third-party rights in it. The studio pointed to media reports from early 2025 that had prompted correspondence between the parties and to a media interview given by the film’s lead actress on July 1, 2026, stating that shooting had wrapped up.
Counsels appearing for JioStar, submitted that the company had already replied to Phantom’s legal notice in April 2026, and sought time to file a reply to the interim application.
The Court after hearing arguments declined to grant ad-interim relief. It noted that Phantom’s own pleadings showed it had been aware of the film since early 2025, and found no urgency pleaded in the plaint or the application that would justify urgent relief without first hearing the defendants. It also held that the lead actress’s July 1 interview was not part of the pleadings and could not be considered at this stage.
The court directed the defendants to file their reply within two weeks and listed the matter for August 4, 2026.
Read order here.
Satluj Controversy Deepens: Government Takedown, Security Review and High Court Petitions
The legal controversy surrounding Satluj (formerly Punjab ’95), starring Diljit Dosanjh and directed by Honey Trehan, has intensified following the Union Government’s decision to direct ZEE5 to remove the film from its platform within two days of its release. According to reports, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued the takedown direction under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, citing security concerns. Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct intermediaries to block public access to online content on specified grounds, including the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States and public order.
Subsequently, the matter was placed before the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) constituted under the IT Rules, 2021, which examines complaints relating to digital publishers and OTT content. The IDC has reportedly recommended that the restriction on the film’s availability continue, observing that its public streaming may adversely impact India’s sovereignty and integrity. The recommendation now forms part of the statutory oversight mechanism governing digital content under the IT Rules, 2021.
The controversy has also reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, albeit in a different context. A petition has been filed seeking directions against the organisers of alleged unauthorised public screenings of Satluj after its removal from ZEE5. The petitioner has sought appropriate action against those facilitating such screenings, contending that they are unlawful and capable of disturbing public order.
The Satluj episode is likely to reignite debate on the scope of governmental powers under Section 69A, the procedural safeguards applicable to blocking orders, and the evolving regulatory framework governing OTT platforms in India. It also underscores the increasingly significant role of the IT Rules, 2021 in shaping the distribution and accessibility of digital audiovisual content beyond the traditional certification regime under the Cinematograph Act.
Delhi High Court Issues Summons In Cricketer Abhishek Sharma’s Personality Rights Suit, Orders Take Down Of Infringing Content
The Delhi High Court on 09th July, 2026 passed an interim order directing take down of various offending posts and links misusing the personality traits and likeness of cricketer Abhishek Sharma.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed an interim order in the suit filed by Sharma seeking protection of his personality rights.
The Hon’ble Court recognised the reputation of Abhishek Sharma and held that the documents placed on record show that Defendants No. 1 to 8 have uploaded content, which is false and obscene and is portraying the Plaintiff in a bad light besides attributing to Plaintiff acts and words, which are untrue. Defendants No. 9 to 12 are selling merchandise with name, image and likeness of the Plaintiff for unlawful commercial gains, without his consent/authorization and this is severely impacting Plaintiff’s commercial value, which he has a right to protect.
Accordingly, the court has issued the interim injunction in favour of Abhishek Sharma and directed the intermediaries such as Meta, Flipkart and Amazon to remove the objectionable content.
Read detailed order here.
MHA issues fresh guidelines on National Anthem, Vande Mataram and state songs
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued new directions to all State Governments, Union Territory (UT) administrations, and central ministries, reiterating rules regarding the singing of the National Anthem and the National Song, and calling for strict compliance.
The new instructions refer to earlier orders that explain which rules must be followed and which are optional. They also stress the importance of using the correct script, words, and pronunciation. Official versions and pronunciation guides can be found on the MHA website. All Government institutions will receive these instructions to ensure everyone follows the rules.
If both songs are performed at an event, ‘Vande Mataram’ should come before ‘Jana Gana Mana’. In States or Union Territories with their own official songs, the order should be the State song first, then the National Song, and finally the National Anthem. This order respects both national and regional identities.
The complete version of Vande Mataram, which has six stanzas and takes about three minutes and ten seconds to sing, must be used at important official events. These include civil investitures, when the President arrives or leaves formal events, before and after the President’s address on All India Radio and TV, when governors arrive or leave formal functions, and when the National Flag is brought on parade. The Government may also request its use at other times.
Everyone is required to stand at attention during the National Song and the National Anthem. People are expected to stay silent, remain still, and show respect. The MHA also refers to its earlier order from January 28, 2026, which designates the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram as the standard for official events.
The usual rules for the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana) remain in place. The full version is played at civil and military ceremonies, national salutes, parades, and when the President arrives or leaves. A shorter version is used for special occasions, like toasts at messes.
India’s National Anthem, written by Rabindranath Tagore and adopted on January 24, 1950, stands for unity in diversity. Vande Mataram, written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and taken from his novel Anandamath, was important in the freedom movement and was given equal honour by the same resolution.
‘Ghostbuster’ row: Trademark need not be formally declared well-known to get cross-class protection, says Delhi HC
A plea by the producer of the American film ‘Ghostbusters’ against a company’s move to get the name ‘Ghost Buster’ registered as a trademark in India for certain chemical products recently led the Delhi High Court to make pertinent observations on cross-class trademark protection. The Court held that a trademark need not have been formally declared a well-known mark before its proprietor can seek protection against the registration of an identical or similar mark for dissimilar goods
Justice Jyoti Singh said the Registrar of Trade Marks can determine whether an earlier trade mark qualifies as being a well-known trademark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, during opposition proceedings. The Court passed the ruling while dealing with an appeal by Columbia Pictures Industries against the registration of GHOST BUSTER for pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations in Class 5.
Columbia Pictures had opposed the registration by relying on its GHOSTBUSTERS trademark, associated with the popular film franchise. The Registrar rejected the opposition in April 2025. The Registrar reasoned that Columbia Pictures had registered GHOSTBUSTERS only Classes 9, 25, 28 and 41, and did not have any registration or evidence of use of the mark for goods falling in Class 5.
The High Court found that the Registrar had failed to examine Columbia Pictures’ case under Section 11. The provision protects well-known trademarks against identical or similar marks even when the rival goods or services are dissimilar. The Court rejected the argument that Columbia Pictures should first have secured a formal declaration of GHOSTBUSTERS as a well-known trademark, either from a court or by following the procedure under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
It explained that Section 11(2) only requires the earlier mark to be well known in India. The Registrar can determine this question by examining the factors under Sections 11(6) and 11(7), including the duration and extent of its use, promotion, recognition among the relevant public, registrations and enforcement history.
Justice Singh found that the Registrar had focused solely on the dissimilarity between the rival goods without examining the evidence produced by Columbia Pictures regarding the reputation of GHOSTBUSTERS. The Registrar had also failed to consider the allegation that the newer mark, GHOST BUSTER, was adopted in bad faith. Columbia Pictures claimed that a sister concern of the applicant had earlier sought registration of the same mark in the United States but abandoned the application after opposition.
The Court proceeded to set aside the Registrar’s decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within three months. It clarified that it had not declared GHOSTBUSTERS a well-known trademark or expressed any opinion on the merits.
Read order here.
Music industry launches AI-generated content labels
Several major music industry organizations on 10th July, 2026 unveiled a labeling system for content created with generative artificial intelligence that they would like to see widely adopted.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) announced the voluntary labels alongside six other groups including the Grammys.
They unveiled two labels. The first would indicate music that is primarily “AI generated” — cases where artificial intelligence “was used to generate the entirety or the primary portion of the creative elements of the recording.” This includes tracks generated “entirely” from AI prompts, as well as lead vocals and “key” instrumental tracks that are AI-generated, according to the statement.
TRAI seeks IT Act powers to act against Truecaller, other call management apps: Report
Telecom regulator TRAI has sought authorisation from the IT ministry to act against call management apps like Truecaller, sources aware of the development said.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has already floated a draft regulation to tighten the noose on pesky and fraudulent calls with a provision to regulate call management apps; a move which has been countered by caller identification app Truecaller.
The regulator in the Draft Telecom Commercial Communication Preference (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2026, has included provisions for call management apps. The proposed regulation seeks that no call management app or similar services for identification of pesky calls and sms shall tag, block, filter or give any treatment to calls meant for genuine communication or restrict incoming calls originating from any number series designated for commercial communications.
In the draft regulation, TRAI has proposed for tagging or blocking calls originating from number series starting from 140 (for telemarketing calls) or 1600 meant for banking, financial services, and insurance companies to make service- or transaction-related calls.
Truecaller CEO Jhunjhunwala, in a social media post, said that while the intent to issue designated series might sound good on paper, there has been a huge increase in spam calls through 140 and 1600 number series. He said there is a massive increase in the number of reported spam and scam calls by the Truecaller community, even though the app is now allowed to show them. He said some of the calls are, of course, legitimate, which Truecaller would have displayed with its verified badge, and consumers would have answered these calls. He said that at present Truecaller users actively block 4 lakh calls from the 140 series and 1.25 lakh calls from the 1600 series every day. He said TRAI’s request to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for seeking authorisation makes absolutely no sense.
The move comes amid rising friction between telecom operators and call-filtering platforms over the tagging of legitimate commercial and service calls as spam, a practice that operators argue undermines regulated numbering frameworks and affects consumer communication.
Big Hit Music denies plagiarism claims against BTS’ ‘Swim’, promises legal response
BTS’s agency, Big Hit Music, has pushed back against accusations that “Swim,” the lead single from the group’s fifth studio album Arirang, copies a song written by relatively unknown American songwriters. The label dismissed the accusations as one-sided and said it plans to pursue a robust legal defense.
According to Billboard, songwriters Steve Cooper, John Sandler, and Graylyn Johnson recently filed suit, arguing that “Swim” bears substantial resemblance to a demo they had written under the same title.
The lawsuit names HYBE, its U.S. subsidiary HYBE America, and Big Hit Music as defendants, along with several songwriters credited on “Swim,” including Ryan Tedder, best known as a member of OneRepublic. Notably, while BTS member RM is credited as a co-writer of the track, Billboard reported that neither he nor any other BTS member was included as a defendant in the filing.
A central element of any copyright dispute is whether the alleged infringer had access to the original work. On this point, the plaintiffs claim they circulated their demo to multiple people in the music industry beginning in March of the previous year, including staff at Artist Publishing Group, and allege the track eventually reached some of the writers involved in creating “Swim.”
To support their case, the songwriters enlisted musicologist Alexander Stewart to conduct a comparative analysis of the two songs. Stewart reportedly identified overlapping elements in the chorus hook including the repeated use of the title, as well as shared characteristics in harmony, texture, rhythm, and lyrical content. Based on his review, he concluded that the resemblance was too strong to be coincidental, describing “Swim” as derivative rather than an original composition.
In response, Big Hit Music issued a statement on July 10, 2026 addressing the controversy directly. The agency asserted that the lawsuit rests entirely on the plaintiffs’ own unverified claims and reaffirmed its position that “Swim” was created independently. The company stated it intends to contest the allegations firmly through the appropriate legal channels.
