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
A trademark is a symbol or design or word or phrase that acts as an identifier for a business goods or services. A business may come up with a unique design to stand out from its competitors, to act as a differentiating symbol for the company. At times a trademark may even take colour as a differentiating identifier for a business.
The development of Artificial Intelligence, from being able to create edited photos to now generating deepfake videos that cannot be distinguished from real videos, has created an imminent threat to intellectualpropertyrights and personalityrights specifically. Image Sources: Shutterstock] In D.M.
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
This book review of IntellectualPropertyLaw in Nigeria: Emerging Trends, Theories And Practice by Desmond Oriakhogba (University of the Western Cape, South Africa) and Ifeoluwa Olubiyi (Afe Babaloloa University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria) is kindly provided by Kasim Waziri , Professor of Law at the University of Abuja, Nigeria.
Monitoring and safeguarding these advancements in AI technology are crucial aspects to ensure the protection of intellectualproperty in this evolving landscape. India, aligning its intellectualpropertylaws with those of the US and UK, similarly does not provide protection for works generated entirely by AI.
These agreements include the following: ● Artist agreement – When an artist does business with a company, an agreement is made between the parties because art is inherently subject to many IntellectualProperty issues.
5] Conversely, the Brazilian system is primarily rooted in personalityrights, particularly human dignity as a constitutional basis to the Brazilian constitutional order, which is expressed by four different fundamental rights: (i) freedom, (ii) equality, (iii) physical and psychological integrity, and (iv) dignity stricto sensu. [6]
IntellectualPropertyIntellectualpropertylaw offers protection to intellectual creations of humankind. Through a bunch of IP laws like copyright, patent, and trade secrets, expressions, innovations, and confidential information are respectively protected. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
ABSTRACT There has been a dramatic increase in the commercial use of celebrity personalities by people not authorized to do so compared to the earlier times. Protecting personalityrights has become a growing problem in India due to deepfakes, morphed pictures, etc. Interesting right? Puttaswamy v.
Many companies exploit renowned person identities without obtaining proper consent, leading intellectualproperty experts to advocate for the safeguarding of image rights through registration under IntellectualPropertylaws.
The plaintiff was in the business of publishing and distributing the comic series title ‘Nagraj’ in which the character Nagraj normally wears a green colour body stocking giving the impression of serpentine skin and red trunks with a belt that appears to be a snake. InRaja Pocket Books v. RFMLR (2018) 1 Titan Industries Limited v.
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