“It is further pointed out that, without filing any response to the present plaint, Defendant 2 is continuing to mislead the public into believing that no license is required to be obtained from the plaintiff before exploiting the recordings in which it has copyright.”
Technology has posed a major challenge for entities like the Plaintiffs as there is a proliferation of many platforms including websites from where unauthorised, unlicensed and pirated content of the Plaintiffs can be downloaded, accessed and viewed by customers and viewers.
“Ordinarily, once a finding is rendered that no prima facie case is made out, no discussion is warranted on the aspects of grave and irreparable loss and balance of convenience.”
“The dissolution of partnership is one aspect and its effect on carrying on business by making different arrangements to defeat rights of a registered trade mark owner, is altogether a different thing”
The present suit relates to the idea of a storytelling platform, there can be no monopoly over the running of such a platform. However, all such platforms that share stories about various individuals/subjects would be attaching/incorporating their own creative ways to communicate and disseminate the said stories, which constitute the expression. Such expression is protectable under Copyright law.
“While E-Commerce provide new platforms for small designers and businesses, the same ought not to be misused for the purposes of imitating and producing look alike products thereby violating any intellectual property rights.”
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.
The present case highlights the precarious position in which artists, film producers, companies who manage rights in music, and others are placed due to the execution of multiple agreements in respect of the same work.
“There can be no copyright claimed in the Scriptures. However, any adaptations of the said work including providing explanation, summary, meaning, exegesis/interpretation or creating any audio-visual works being transformative works, will be entitled to copyright protection.”
“Piracy of cinematograph films is one of the biggest causes for losses in the film industry. Thus, various legislative steps have been taken to curb piracy and recently, amendments have been carried out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to deal with piracy in a much stricter manner.”
Bombay High Court perused the assignment deed pertaining to the film ‘Amba’ and opined that ‘the said work’ indicates plaintiff’s failure in making out a prima facie case of only audio rights being assigned to the defendant.
The screenplay of the film is entirely the work of Satyajit Ray. ‘Nayak’ was also entirely the directorial effort of Satyajit Ray. The plaintiff, RD Bansal is merely the producer of the film.
In the instant case clips and stills from the film ‘Jawan’ were already available on the internet over various platforms, though no license to broadcast or transmit any part of the film has, to date, been granted by the plaintiff to any entity.
The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”
The practice and procedure, both pre and post GST are consistent and involve participation of the officer of the DGGI in issuance of show cause notices.
“The Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.”
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction to RPG Enterprises Ltd. for its mark ‘RPG’. Further, RPG Developers (P) Ltd. were restrained from offering/rendering any services using the impugned trade mark ‘RPG’ and/or ‘RPG DEVELOPERS’ and/or artistic work which was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’s artistic work or any other trade mark/artistic work deceptively similar to the ‘RPG’ marks of the plaintiff. Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded as damages to the plaintiff.
There was no written authorisation in Brompton's favour to use the YSL marks in relation to the Boutique, the goods offered from the Boutique and otherwise. Thus, the Court held that Brompton could not be considered as a “permitted user” of the YSL marks.
Microsoft filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from directly or indirectly reproducing/storing/installing and/or using pirated/unlicensed software programmes, thereby infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs’ computer programmes/software titles.
Mebigo Labs Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining Pocket FM Private Limited from committing acts of copyright infringement and unfair competition regarding the Hindi translation of the audio book titled “Mossad: The Greatest Mission of the Israeli Secret Service”.