Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the third week of July 2023, the plaintiff, through its representative/ salesperson, came to know about the defendant’s use of a mark identical to the plaintiff’s device/logo on their shoes.
by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal*
The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending their claim for tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye”; and there was no other compelling reason as to why the Ghadi’s claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence vide a summary judgment.
by Eshita Gupta* and Yagya Agarwal**
Making AI tools available that enable conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without their permission constitutes a violation of their personality rights and such tools facilitate unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.
The rights of the impugned song ‘Udi Jab Jab Zulfein’ from the film ‘Naya Daur’ had been assigned to Saregama India Ltd. by BR Films, the original producer of the film.
“There is also no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording oral evidence, especially since the trust deed by which copyright was assigned was registered and the defendant does not claim to be either the owner, assignee or licensee of the said right.”
The Court explained that the 1994 amendment was introduced for protecting and facilitating the exercise of owner’s rights and not restricting or diminishing them.
“The hoarding incorporating the mural would reveal that it is clearly an advertisement and that defendant’s advertisement reproduced plaintiff’s mural titled ‘Humanity’.”
Wynk claimed that Section 31D covers all kinds of dissemination that may be encompassed by the phrase “broadcast” or “communicating to the public”, but does not expressly say anything about the internet, does not prohibit or forbid internet-based services, radio-like or not.
“If any person or entity mis-describes the work as an original work, when it is actually not and is a copy of another work, such registration will be a registration wrongly remaining on the Register of Copyrights.”
by Rohan Khosla†
by Yash Vardhan Garu and Hetvi Mehta
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant matter concerning copyright infringement, the Bench of Niral Mehta, J., observed that a
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment Limited (‘plaintiff') seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: In a case relating to the unauthorized printing/binding/manufacturing/storing/advertising for sale and selling of counterfeit books published by Eastern
Supreme Court: In a case where the Trial Court had held that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is
by Aniket Aggarwal*