This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
From Big-B Baritone to Anil Kapoor’s Jhakaas, the life of Personalityrights : Since Shouvik’s 2010 post about Amitabh Bachhan’s concern over the use of his voice to sell Gutka (an addictive substance), we have come to a long way! Speaking of late movie stars, one may wonder about the posthumous enforcement of celebrity rights.
The Supreme Court has again ruled on the protection of the personalityrights of deceased celebrities. Analyzed in conjunction with the previous Dalí judgment, this new ruling may introduce some uncertainty as to the post mortem scope of protection of such rights. The Supreme Court’s opinion.
Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. In this guest post , Sangita Sharma analyses the law around comparative advertisements in India. She contends that the ‘fair’ and ‘honest’ use thresholds under Section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act should come to the rescue of such advertisements. Other Posts.
The Court held that the use of the Google Ads program undisputedly qualifies as advertising, which falls under Indian trademark law. Several petitions in the Madras High Court challenged the validity of rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. Merck Sharp and Dohme v. SMS Pharmaceuticals [Delhi High Court]. Saregama India Limited v.
the Apex Court held that one of the inherent aspects of the right to privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is the right to prevent others from using the person’s name or likeness without his consent for advertising or non-advertising purposes. State of T.N., 2007, I, no. 125, pourvoi no.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content