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
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 intellectual property rights and personalityrights specifically. and includes both commercial and non-commercial aspects.
Introduction Personalityrights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacy right. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales. Puttaswamy v.
With the greater increase of various leagues such as the IPL in cricket, or the NBA in basketball, various teams are formed by various individuals to assert a title in trademarks and copyrights, amongst other forms of IP so that profit can be maximised. Trademark The Trademarks Act protects registered marks such as names, logos, etc.
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.
Neela Film”), issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants, including websites, e-commerce platforms, YouTube channels and ‘John Doe’ parties, restraining them from infringing the copyright and trademark of the makers of the popular Hindi television sitcom “Taarak Mehta Ka Oolta Chashma” (“TMKOC”). Rajat Nagi & Ors.
Explaining why and how such seemingly innocuous posts infringe on the shooter’s personalityrights, we are pleased to bring to our readers this post by SpicyIP intern Tejas Misra. PersonalityRights: Publicity or Privacy? It can include their face, voice, characteristics and distinctive qualities or attributes.
In a guest post , Satchit Bhogle covered the issue of infringement of personalityrights. It is noted that the test for identifying infringement of personalityrights is to check whether there has been unauthorised use of identity for commercial gain and if there is a likelihood of confusion. News from India.
Case Summaries Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Vinsac Pharma on 17 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Abbott Healthcare sued two defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, claiming they deceptively copied its well-known LIMCEE Vitamin C tablets by selling LIMEECEE with similar packaging. Read the post for more details.
Here is our recap of last weeks top IP developments including summaries of the posts on Delhi HCs ruling on Celebrity Rights and the Powers of Regional Directors under Companies Act vis a vis Trademark Similarity. The Delhi HC restrained the defendants in both cases from infringing the plaintiffs personalityrights.
The proliferation of deepfake technology has posed significant challenges to the protection of individual identity and reputation and the recent incidents of INDIA TV and Medanta hospitals trademark infringement and deepfaked potrayals have once again re-surfaced this issue.
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so we have a fair sprinkling of cases dealing with copyright, patents, trademarks, competition law etc. The case clarifies that the bar on arbitrability of trademark disputes is not an absolute one. Golden Tobacco Ltd [Delhi High Court]. Jorawer Singh Mundy v.
This means the tattoo artist holds the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display the design. COMMISSIONED TATTOOS AND OWNERSHIP When commissioning a tattoo, clients pay for the service, not the copyright. TRADEMARKS AND TATTOOS Tattoos can also intersect with trademark law.
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so it’s a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc. The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals.
Part Two: This part is the core of this work as it lays out in chapters 3-9 many of the emerging issues in IP law such as the protection of plant varieties, traditional knowledge, TCEs, GR and GIs, personalityrights, among others. There is no doubt that the approach employed by the authors in this book is unique.
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the Law Commission’s Report on Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage, DHC’s decisions on working examples, writ jurisdiction of the pre-grant oppositions, and the Viagra-Vigoura trademark dispute. This and much more in last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review.
When AI relies on extensive datasets, questions around the ownership, control, and protection of both personal and IP-related data become critical. AI’s capacity to generate content, inventions, and insights from this data intensifies concerns, not only about ownership but also about copyright and trade secrets. Rajagopal v.
These affected rights encompass personalityrights, representing a distinctive form of intellectual property that transcends mere financial considerations. Personalityrights, being non-inheritable and non-assignable, highlight the personal and non-transferable essence of this form of intellectual property.
She highlights that the emphasis is on investing only in royalty revenue and not buying the artist’s rights or retaining control over their work. NFTs (Non-fungible tokens), which act as a certificate of ownership for whatever the creator puts up for sale, allow artists to set their preferred terms of contract while making sales.
These events point to two prevalent issues within the current legal framework: First, that current intellectual property laws do not properly acknowledge collective ownership over shared culture within Indigenous communities and second, whether tattoo designs have the potential to be protected through copyright laws. Of note, in DRG Inc.
The second edition offers revised, or wholly rewritten chapters to the overlaps discussed in the first edition so as to reflect recent developments, as well as to include new chapters (the overlap between privacy and copyright law; privacy and secrecy; trademarks certification marks and collective marks; and IP and traditional knowledge).
Views expressed here are personal.] Ex Parte Orders on PersonalityRights Courts lately have been passing a slew of ex-parte ad interim orders against Generative Artificial Intelligence (‘gen AI’ ) models for training their models using the voices of celebrities, and for producing output that reciprocates the celebrity’s voice.
NFTs are unique digital tokens that represent ownership of specific digital assets. NFTs are embedded with smart contracts—self-executing contracts written in code—that facilitate the transfer and verification of ownership. Secondly, there is a lot of confusion regarding the ownership and authorship of the work.
Highlights of the Week Bayh Dole-esque Guidelines Notified by Dept of Biotechnology Image from here Earlier this month, Dept of Biotech notified the DBT IP Guidelines for ownership and commercialization of IP arising from DBT funded research outcomes. But does the Indian Trademark Act allow such a treatment? Read the post by Prof.
Weve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so its a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc. The decision by Punjab and Haryana High Court is also notable for explicitly stating that one needs to be a celebrity to be able to claim personalityrights.
. “It Protects Them From Exploitation” The Claim : Capitalizing on celebrities’ identity subjects their personalityrights to potential abuse and jeopardizes their career and livelihood.
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