Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Bombay High Court declined interim relief in a copyright infringement and passing-off action concerning rival logo device marks, holding that resemblance between logos is not by itself actionable unless supported by evidence demonstrating copying or reasonable opportunity of access to the claimant’s work.
Explore latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) shaping Intellectual property Laws which covers trademark infringement, patentability, Deceptive similarity, passing off and Brand name disputes. A holistic view of evolving jurisprudence on intellectual property laws in India.
In the present case, filmmaker Santosh Kumar sought cancellation of the CBFC certification granted for the screening of Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar 2” alleging that the film was a plagiarised version of his original script titled “D Saheb”.
In the present case, Jubilant Generics alleged Jamp Pharma Canada of misusing its confidential pharmaceutical dossiers. Jubilant claims these were wrongly shared with Indian companies, leading to copyright and trade secret violations.
“The procurement of license by the respondent in the past would indicate the knowledge of the respondents that, for the purpose of communicating the plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings, it is necessary to obtain the license from the plaintiff.”
“A comparison of the original artistic works of the plaintiff posted on Instagram with that of the infringing works of Defendants1 and 2 posted on Instagram clearly depicts, prima facie, infringement of the copyrights of the plaintiff.”
“The ad hoc arrangement was directed purely as an interim arrangement so that Defendant 1 can continue to use the sound recordings of the plaintiff’s repertoire and, at the same time, the plaintiff is protected by way of deposit of ad hoc license fees, out of which certain amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiff”
“The need for immediate relief is particularly pressing in this case as the infringing websites are making available the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, which could lead to significant financial losses for the plaintiffs.”
Explore latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) shaping Intellectual property Laws which covers trademark infringement, patentability, passing off and Brand name disputes. A holistic view of evolving jurisprudence on intellectual property laws in India.
This article explains the concept of personality rights and how a surge in celebrity lawsuits is reshaping the law on identity, privacy, and digital misuse in India.
“Asha Bhosle has the right to control the use of all facets of her personality since the same formed part of her exclusive Personality Rights and the misappropriation of the same without her consent was liable to be restrained not only on the basis of the publicity rights but also on the basis of the tort of dilution, more particularly, tarnishment.”
“Indian classical music rarely follows a system of written notation or publication. Since ancient time, the compositions of Indian music were taught orally in the gurushishya Parampara , where knowledge was passed down through oral learning, improvisation, and repeated performance, rather than formal documentation. Hence, after explicitly declaring that fixation is not required, using fixation and performance as the determinative is against the legislation’s aim and objective.”
Mere registration of title with the film producers’ association does not create any statutory right in favour of the plaintiff to restrain defendants from using the title ‘LOOTERE’ for making of their web series.
“The applicant was seeking monopoly over matters in which ex-facie no copyright subsisted to begin with, like common themes, ideas, unoriginal/stocks/scenes-a-faire matters, and other aspects directly flowing from such elements.”
The Adjudication Authority stated that the appellant’s activity of receiving income from transferring temporarily or permitting the use of the right vested in the film produced by them to their clients fell under the definition of copyright service under Section 65(105)(zzzt) of the Finance Act, 1994.
“Since Defendant 2 has perpetual right to use music and songs; he also has perpetual right to grant licence to others in respect of the said music and songs.”
The case pertains to alleged exploitation of PPL’s sound recording in the bars and restaurants owned by Azure Hospitality without taking any license from PPL.
The systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the said content is being updated/ uploaded on the said “rogue websites” shows the extent of the violation of the rights of the plaintiff in real time.
Defendant 3 has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and has also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation.
The act of the defendants of playing the sound recordings in their restaurants/bars, for which the plaintiff holds the copyright would, on a prima facie view, amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in terms of Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.