Remove 2001 Remove Advertising Remove Personality Rights
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 29-August 4)

SpicyIP

Tejas Misra explains why and how these seemingly innocuous posts may infringe on the shooter’s personality rights. It was also submitted that the advertisement of the plaintiff including their mark ‘RUMMYCIRCLE’ was changed to show ‘VRUMMY’ by the defendants.

article thumbnail

[Guest post] Deepfake it till you make it: How does AI relate to postmortem personality rights?

The IPKat

The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following contribution by Danish Katfriends Jakob Plesner Mathiasen and Thit Nymand Nisbeth (both Gorrissen Federspiel) on the interplay between AI, deepfakes, and personality rights in the form of image/publicity rights. The lights dim, and the film rolls. Think again.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

The suit concerned agreements dating back to 2001 between IPRS and ENIL regarding broadcasting music in certain cities. The Court held that the use of the Google Ads program undisputedly qualifies as advertising, which falls under Indian trademark law. Merck Sharp and Dohme v. SMS Pharmaceuticals [Delhi High Court].

IP 143