Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The defendants are operating about 94 establishments, and continuing infringement would result in loss and damage to the plaintiff tilting the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff.”
“Once copyright infringement is the core relief, incidental or ancillary reliefs, whether based on confidentiality, trade secrets, or passing off, do not affect maintainability of the suit as a whole.”
“Both in the context of images and videos, the morphing is so sophisticated and deceptive that it is virtually impossible to discern that the same are not genuine images/videos of the Akshya Kumar.”
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