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 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.
& Ors that has once again brought to the spotlight the debate of balancing the protection of celebrity personalityrights and the freedom of expressions and parodical use. Rights or Wrong?: Are We Going in the Correct Direction for PersonalityRights? India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. &
As a result, interim orders in trademark infringement cases have become somewhat standardized. However, the order was brief and did not specify any statutory or common law basis for the protection of personalityrights, merely citing Titan Industries as precedent. In Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. &
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.
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.
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”).
Codible Ventures LLP and Others , the Bombay High Court addressed a legal dispute of infringement of personalityrights through the use of AI. The suit also involved a claim for the violation of his moral rights under Section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957. In a recent judgment in the case of Arijit Singh v.
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.
Case Summaries Astellas Pharma Inc vs Astellaz Pharmaceuticals on 3 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) The suit was filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trademark. The plaintiff is the owner of the registered mark ASTELLAS. vs Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors.
SpicyIP Tidbit: Mdecins Sans Frontires suit against Dharma Productions for Jigra scene Mdecins Sans Frontires (MSF) filed a suit against Dharma Productions for using its trademark in the movie Jigra. Read this Tidbit by Md Sabeeh Ahmad discussing MSFs averments and the potential trademark questions that may arise! A liability of Rs.
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.
The current statute provides protection of these celebrity rights under trademark law, copyright law as well as passing off action for infringing the said rights. PersonalityRights: Personality is an attribute through which an individual is recognized in the society, depending upon the talent they possess.
Introduction The rights which are granted to the people for their creative work are known as intellectual property rights. They provide the creator a sole, time-limited right to make use of their invention. With this, trademark holders may now defend their logos on the web as well. References [i] Civil appeal No.
Publicity, such as character, reputation and personal brand, will be protected under various statutes, such as the Copyright Act 1957 and the Trade Marks Act 1999. iii] Provisions in Indians Laws Trademarks Act, 1999 does not make any exact provision for publicity rights, but its definition of ‘Marks’ contains names within its ambit.
However, while memes reference and communicate with one another, any changes beyond the trivial and mechanical may meet the originality threshold, even if the later work infringes the earlier. They must demonstrate only that their expression required skill and judgment. While one image or video is fixed, collections are constantly changing.
It refers to marketing in respect of trending topics/events usually undertaken by brands to gain traction and benefit from the popularity that the trending events have garnered. We have come across many instances where Indian celebrities have registered their names and/or their signatures as a trademark. PersonalityRights.
Broadly, AI refers to the capability of performing tasks or processing information using its own intelligence, algorithms, or commands, independent of human intervention. student from Hidayatullah National Law University.
Image Sources : Shutterstock] Legal rights in domain names can be derived from these sources: registration of the name as a trademark ; prolonged use of the name for trading; or the biological name of a person. the owner of the well-known trademark “Yahoo!” Akash Arora and Ors. [1] The plaintiff, Yahoo!,
Introduction Personalityrightsrefer 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.
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.
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.
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? However, Indian law has indirect references for the protection of publicity rights.
Among the many grounds was the court’s refusal to afford post mortem protection to personalityrights of the actor. I shall specifically be dealing with the contention around publicity rights. While not empirically provable, on a quick google search, it would naturally appear to any person as if the film is based on SSR.
When they do that, they open themselves up to accusations of unauthorisedly infringing on the athlete’s personalityrights. But the patriotism of FMCG and other companies, entities who have personality and nationality only by legal fiction, is less certain. The landmark judgement in this regard is D.M. Entertainment Pvt.
Fantasy Sports refers to an area of online gaming wherein participants put together virtual teams composed of proxies of current professional players within a league and play for points and/or money. Fantasy Sports and Trademarks. The publicity right vests in an individual and he alone is entitled to profit from it.”.
She argues that the law should broaden the definition of serious comparative advertisement (where the owner of the mark advertises his product reference to his competitor’s product based on scientific study) by allowing multiple comparisons. In this guest post , Sangita Sharma analyses the law around comparative advertisements in India.
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.
In my opinion, there has never been any talk of such works, because that would be the same as talking about non-distinctive trademarks. The problem is not human, but the work In fact, the whole issue is not about a person, but about a work. If someone invades your privacy, you can enforce your personalityrights.
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 delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd.
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. Citing the agreement, the defendant requested the suit to be referred to an arbitration. Golden Tobacco Ltd [Delhi High Court]. Piyush Subhashbhai Ranipa v.
Regarding personalityrights and introducing a public interest test before granting protection to celebrities, Rebecca Cardoso, in this guest post, advocates for a balanced approach prioritizing protection against genuine harm instead of trivial grievances. Navigating PersonalityRights Does Fame Have a Trade-Off?
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. .
When it discusses whether the suit contemplates any urgent interim relief, the Court, at two places in the judgement, borrows language and factors from Trademark law to justify the need for urgent interim relief in a suit involving Copyright infringement. Interestingly, they have also been subject to protection under personalityrights.
In light of the ongoing dispute between the makers of the motion picture “Main Ladega” and the National Boxing Championship over the alleged use of the latter’s logo in the film, SpicyIP intern Sumedh Gadham discusses whether such use would amount to trademark or copyright infringement. & Ors. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. &
Therein, the Court categorically held that the right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice, etc. Entertainment Pvt. vs. Baby Gift House and Ors.,
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.
Image from here [Part II] The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…… The Show Must Go On? “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