Bombay HC Quashes ₹79.72-Crore GST Demand Against Dharma Productions
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil) quashed orders confirming a differential GST demand exceeding ₹79.72 crore against Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. and Dharmatic Entertainment. The tax authorities had misclassified the digital licensing of cinematographic film copyright as “Information Technology Software” under Entry 17(ii) (taxable at 18%), relying on technical delivery via digital “software format” links. The High Court held that licensing film copyright falls under Entry 17(i) (licensing of IP rights in goods other than IT Software), correctly taxable at 12% for the relevant period (FY 2017–18 to 2020–21). The Court emphasized that a passive audio-visual film does not satisfy the statutory definition of software—which requires machine-readable code capable of execution, manipulation, or interactivity. Exercising writ jurisdiction despite alternate appellate remedies, the Court held that misapplying a statutory tax entry amounts to a jurisdictional error that renders proceedings void ab initio.
Zee Drags JioStar Back to Delhi HC Over Expired Music License Non-Compliance
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (ZEEL) approached the Delhi High Court alleging that JioStar India Pvt. Ltd. continues to stream Zee’s copyrighted music library (exceeding 19,450 tracks) across its TV channels and streaming platforms despite their licensing agreement expiring on October 31, 2025. Zee argued that JioStar failed to comply with the court’s May 5 order directing it to cease using the music, asserting that as a platform owner, JioStar cannot rely on safe-harbor “notice-and-takedown” mechanisms meant for intermediaries. JioStar submitted that it has deployed automated algorithms to scrub legacy background tracks, but isolated instances remain, offering to work directly with Zee to take down identified tracks over two weeks. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Zee to furnish specific instances of non-compliance and ordered JioStar to file a formal response to the contempt application without making an immediate finding of willful non-compliance.
Actor Manoj Bajpayee Files Suit in Delhi HC to Protect Personality Rights
Actor Manoj Bajpayee moved the Delhi High Court seeking comprehensive protection over his personality rights, including his name, voice, image, and overall likeness. The suit specifically targets unauthorized commercial exploitation by commercial fashion brands (including H2PG Designs using his image to falsely imply brand endorsements), unauthorized AI voice-cloning, and deceptive character portrayals deployed across interactive AI platforms. Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar addressed initial venue queries from Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, establishing proper territorial jurisdiction due to Delhi-based defendants. Recognizing the rising wave of identity theft via generative tools, the matter was directed to specialized Intellectual Property Division (IPD) benches.
Actor Rakesh Bedi Files Personality Rights Suit in Delhi High Court
Veteran actor Rakesh Bedi filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against unidentified digital entities (John Doe) and social media accounts to protect his personal attributes and likeness. The action addresses the unchecked commercial exploitation of his identity, focusing on the unauthorized deployment of AI-generated deepfake videos, synthetic voice models, and deceptive digital avatars across online platforms without prior consent or licensing.
Dr. Vikas Divyakirti Seeks Personality Rights Protection Over Drishti IAS Identity
Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, founder of Drishti IAS, approached the Delhi High Court to enforce his personality and publicity rights against widespread digital impersonation. The lawsuit targets fake social media profiles, unauthorized merchandise, and synthetic AI-generated audio/video content designed to exploit his goodwill and mislead UPSC aspirants. The court transferred the action to its dedicated Intellectual Property Division (IPD) to ensure consistent adjudication across celebrity identity disputes.
Bengaluru Civil Court Issues Injunction Against Review Bombing of ‘The Paradise’
The XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining X Corp (formerly Twitter) and unknown online entities from hosting or disseminating targeted derogatory content aimed at review-bombing the movie ‘The Paradise’ ahead of its theatrical release. Moving under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the producer (Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Cinemas LLP) established that orchestrated campaigns following the trailer launch went far beyond artistic evaluation, constituting targeted commercial defamation that risked irreversible economic damage. While dispensing with prior notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 due to urgency, the court explicitly clarified that the restriction is confined strictly to URLs listed in the plaint schedule and does not impede genuine public reviews or bona fide film critique.
Delhi HC Directs Meta to Remove AI Deepfakes of Woman with Prime Minister
Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court ordered Meta Platforms to remove AI-morphed, explicit images of a woman digitally stitched alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi within 24 hours of receiving link details. The petitioner’s face had been swapped using AI tools and displayed on physical banners during political protests as well as circulated online. Taking serious note of death threats received by the victim following the viral deepfake campaign, the High Court issued notices to political organizers and directed the Delhi Police to immediately provide full protection to the petitioner, underscoring the urgent need for stringent enforcement against non-consensual synthetic media.
Delhi HC Issues Contempt Notice to Bombay Shaving Company Over Revised Ad
In Gillette India Ltd. v. Visage Lines Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court issued a contempt notice under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC to Visage Lines (Bombay Shaving Company). Gillette alleged that despite giving an undertaking to withdraw a disputed advertisement, the defendant released a “revised” campaign that retained the core disparaging elements. Justice A.J. Bhambhani observed on a prima facie viewing that there was no perceptible difference in the commercial impact of the revised advertisement compared to the original version, barring the defendant from running the modified advertisement until the next hearing.
Madras High Court Restrains Media Outlets from Telecasting Explicit POCSO Evidence
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court restrained media outlets and broadcasting networks from publishing or telecasting leaked video clips concerning the POCSO case registered against granite businessman Gem Veeramani. The order came on a petition filed by child rights NGO Tulir after news channels broadcast leaked evidence footage during bail hearings. The High Court held that while media outlets have the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to report on case developments, they have no right to conduct a “trial by media” or broadcast raw Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM). The court noted that premature circulation of explicit trial evidence creates a chilling effect on other minor victims coming forward. To balance public interest with privacy, the court declined a blanket John Doe ban but ordered state Special Investigation Teams (SIT) to issue official weekly press updates.
Record Labels Expand Legal Action Against Suno AI
Record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Records expanded their ongoing legal claims against AI music startup Suno. Beyond foundational copyright infringement assertions regarding unlicensed training data, the labels introduced DMCA Section 1201 circumvention claims, alleging Suno used automated tools to bypass YouTube’s technical protections to scrape audio. Furthermore, major labels filed updated claims targeting Suno’s Version 6 model under a “contaminated lineage” theory, alleging that even if Version 6 was trained on clean data, it inherited knowledge distillation and preference data derived from earlier infringing iterations.
Universal Music Group Sues DistroKid Over $150M “AI-Slop Pipeline”
Universal Music Group (UMG) filed a massive copyright infringement and deceptive trade practices lawsuit against DistroKid in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. UMG alleges that DistroKid has knowingly allowed its digital distribution network to serve as an “AI-slop pipeline,” flooding platforms like Spotify and Apple Music with thousands of unauthorized AI-generated tracks, voice clones, and speed-altered remixes that siphon royalties away from human artists. Seeking maximum statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work across 1,000 catalogued exhibits (totalling an initial $150 million), UMG’s strategy marks a major push to hold self-serve DIY music distributors legally accountable for rights verification, vetting, and fraud prevention before content hits streaming platforms.
California Enacts AB 1130: $5,000 Fines for Hidden Political Influencer Ads
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1130 into law, establishing strict financial penalties for social media influencers and creators who accept compensation from political campaigns or committees without explicitly disclosing the sponsorship. While California has mandated paid political disclosures since 2023, AB 1130 empowers the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to impose administrative and civil fines of up to $5,000 per post, with provisions to refer willful violations to law enforcement as misdemeanors carrying up to one year in prison, closing regulatory loopholes surrounding stealth influencer political marketing ahead of election cycles.
The IP Gold Rush: Major Media Players Drive India’s Microdrama Boom
India’s microdrama market has seen exponential expansion, doubling its annual recurring revenue to roughly $260 million. Legacy entertainment houses—including Zee Entertainment, Balaji Telefilms, Applause Entertainment, Yash Raj Films (via Rusk Media), and digital storytelling hub Pratilipi (via Double Tap Films)—are increasingly utilizing vertical drama formats to repackage and test intellectual property. Microdramas offer a mobile-first content model at low production costs (₹20,000–₹50,000 per episode). Rather than relying on unproven concepts, studios are taking two routes: licensing established television/film IP for short-form reimagining, or utilizing digital reading platforms (like Pratilipi’s 20-million-story catalog) to identify pre-validated audience engagement before greenlighting production.
