Court orders removal of deepfake videos of National Stock Exchange: The Bombay High Court has ordered social media platforms to remove deepfake videos of NSE’s managing director giving stock tips. Justice RI Chagla directed intermediaries– Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram– to delete accounts infringing on NSE’s trademark. The court emphasized that prompt action is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to NSE found a strong case for temporary relief and restrained further trademark infringements. Social media intermediaries must provide details of accounts involved in these violations. (Read order here.)
India to Decriminalize certain Intellectual Property Laws from August 1, 2024: On July 26, 2025, the Central Government issued a notification under sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (Act No. 18 of 2023). This notification appoints August 1, 2024, as the date on which the provisions of the Act related to serial numbers 18, 30, and 31, as mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, will come into effect. These provisions pertain to amendments in the Patents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 to decriminalize certain offenses under these Acts. This amendment replaces criminal penalties with financial penalties for various offenses. For instance, fines and penalties will be imposed instead of imprisonment for certain violations. The changes also introduce mechanisms for adjudication and appeals, ensuring due process and opportunities for hearings. See the notification, here, for more.
Delhi HC refuses interim stay on Netflix series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper: The Delhi High Court has denied an interim stay on the Netflix series “Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper,” stating it falls under comedy and isn’t derogatory to the chartered accountancy profession. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and four CAs filed a plea claiming the show defames their profession. After watching the trailer, Justice Navin Chawla found no basis for the injunction, noting the series is comedic and doesn’t reference the CA profession derogatorily. It further noted that “It is neither intended nor can be perceived to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy or the toppers or rank holders in the examination conducted by the plaintiff no. 1 (ICAI). The artistic expression, even in the form of a commercial speech, cannot be curtailed on the basis of an oversensitive approach.” Read order here.
Filing Of Pending Compulsory License Application Does Not Permit Copyright Infringement says the Delhi High Court: Recently, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction against Al-Hamd Tradenation and prohibited them from using Phonographic Performance Limited’s (PPL) copyrighted sound recordings. The court ruled that the defendant must secure a license and pay the necessary fees to PPL. As per the news report, Al-Hamd refused to pay the current tariff of Rs. 55,440/-, offering only Rs. 16,500/- and threatening to seek a compulsory license under Section 31(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Consequently, the case came about. The court, favoring PPL, emphasized that failure to protect its rights would result in irreparable damage. Read order here.
The Bombay High Court has approved the release of the movie “Teesri Begum”: The Bombay High Court has approved the release of the movie “Teesri Begum” after the filmmakers agreed to modify a controversial slogan and add a disclaimer. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had previously ordered Bokadia, the movie’s producer, to change a scene where a Muslim man chants “Jai Shree Ram” while being attacked by Hindu wives. Additionally, the CBFC required the removal of a scene related to Triple Talaq, deeming it contrary to a Supreme Court judgment. The CBFC informed the court that once the modifications were made, it would determine whether to grant an ‘A’ or ‘U/A’ certification. The filmmakers agreed to change the slogan to “Tumko Tumhari Bhagwan Ki Kasam” and to include a disclaimer about the Triple Talaq scene. With these changes, the court allowed the movie’s release. (see here for more)
PIL plea in Madras High Court insists on regulating YouTube content: A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking orders to the government to evolve a mechanism to regulate the functioning of YouTube to keep a check on the ‘unbridled display of objectionable content’ which affects the ‘peace and tranquillity in the society’. The petitioner, advocate V Parthiban said “The lack of a mechanism to regulate YouTube content is affecting the peace and tranquillity of the general public,” and added that such unrestricted videos paved the way for child abuse as explicit content is uploaded for monetary benefits. He said it is shocking that there is no censoring of YouTube content before uploading, even if they are objectionable. By the time the web app decides to remove content, the damage might be already done. He prayed for the court to issue directions to the state government to devise a mechanism to regulate the streaming of videos on YouTube. The matter came up for hearing before the first bench of Acting Chief Justices D Krishnakumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu on Monday. Since the petitioner had not included the Union government as a respondent, the court adjourned the hearing, asking him to change the petition accordingly. (see here for more)
Delhi HC rules in favor of Adidas AG stops three local firms from using ‘ADIDAS’ mark: The Delhi High Court has barred three local firms—Adidas Weaving Mills, Adidas Textile Industries, and Adidas Merchandise—and their directors from using the ‘ADIDAS’ trademark or any deceptively similar marks. Justice Sanjeev Narula awarded Rs 14.22 lakh in damages to Adidas AG, including Rs 3 lakh in nominal damages and Rs 11.22 lakh in litigation costs from the 13-year case. Despite the defendants’ claims that their use of ‘ADIDAS’ was out of personal affection and admiration, the court ruled their actions were likely to cause confusion. The court upheld its jurisdiction and dismissed arguments about delays and territorial relevance, siding with Adidas AG and recognizing the distinctiveness of the ‘ADIDAS’ trademark. (see, Rishabh Deshpande‘s piquing post on SpicyIP for more). Read order here.
Logan Paul’s Prime sued for Olympic trademark infringement: As per this NY post. Prime Hydration, founded by Logan Paul and KSI, is being sued by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee for trademark infringement. The lawsuit, filed in Colorado, alleges Prime used trademarked terms like “OLYMPIC” and “TEAM USA” in its marketing, including a drink featuring NBA star Kevin Durant. The committee claims Prime’s actions were willful and damaging, seeking profits from the infringing products. Coca-Cola holds exclusive rights to Olympic trademarks, and the suit argues Prime’s actions threaten this deal. Despite requests to stop, Prime continued distribution, though the products have since been removed from their website and social media.
14 NBA teams sued for copyright infringement over alleged use of music in social media posts without permission: The NBA recently got into a legal brawl where Fourteen NBA teams were accused of using music without permission to promote social media posts. Filed on behalf of independent music publishers such as Kobalt Music Group, Artist Publishing Group, Notting Hill Music, and Prescription Songs, the lawsuits claimed up to $150,000 in damages per infringement, an injunction to prevent further misuse and attorney fees. The teams involved are the Atlanta Hawks, Cleveland Cavaliers, Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, Miami Heat, Minnesota Timberwolves, New Orleans Pelicans, New York Knicks, Orlando Magic, Philadelphia 76ers, Phoenix Suns, Portland Trail Blazers, Sacramento Kings, and San Antonio Spurs. The infringed artists include big names like Cardi B, Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Migos, and OutKast, as reported by Bill Donahue of Billboard. (see here for more)
Warner Brothers Discovery sues NBA over Amazon rights deal: Warner Brothers Discovery sued the NBA for breaching a contract by rejecting a new media rights deal in favor of Amazon. The lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court, follows the NBA’s signing of 11-year rights deals worth nearly $76 billion with Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon Prime Video. Warner Brothers Discovery claimed it matched Amazon’s $1.8 billion annual offer, but the NBA disagreed, ending their partnership that began in 1984. (see here for more)
