Remove 2012 Remove Copying Remove Personality Rights
article thumbnail

The Interplay of Personality Rights and Freedom of Expression- the Jackie Shroff’s Case’

IP and Legal Filings

However, this article will discuss the reasoning of the court with respect to relief claimed by the Plaintiff against a creator of a YouTube video who compiled the interviews of the plaintiff and depicted his personality as ‘thug life’ The plaintiff contended that such videos portrayed him in a derogatory manner. million views.

article thumbnail

Publicity Rights: An analysis of Amitabh Bachchan V. Rajat Nagi & Ors.

Intepat

Due to the extent of unlawful activity associated with the petitioner’s name and personality, the court granted a restraining order on 25 th November 2022 against various people and companies. What are Publicity Rights? For instance, in Titan Industries Ltd.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

BALANCING PUBLIC INTEREST AND CORPORATE RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD V. RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICE CASE

Intepat

While copyright is distinct from other forms of intellectual property by focusing on personal rights, its primary role is to manage and protect knowledge. Everything was going well until 2012 when University Press, Cambridge University Press (UK), and Taylor & Francis Group (UK), as well as Cambridge University Press India Pvt.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

[Delhi High Court] On September 20, the Delhi High Court granted relief to film actor Anil Kapoor against the unauthorised use of his image, name, voice, and other traits of his persona for monetary gain, reinforcing his personality rights. Sarl a A Sarogi , where the Court affirmed the position on descendability of publicity rights.

IP 124
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 13- May 19) 

SpicyIP

The Court ruled that the defendants have tried to slavishly copy the plaintiffs’ trademark by adopting a visually, structurally and phonetically similar trademark. It’s alleged that the defendant’s deceptively similar mark is also used in its websites for their products which have attracted negative reviews and comments.