Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala

Dr. Kalyan Kankanala is a practicing intellectual property (IP) attorney and author. He is a senior partner at BananaIP Counsels, a well-known IP firm based in Bangalore, India. His writings cover a range of topics relating to IP law, business, and policy, and he has authored several books and articles in the field. He has been contributing to this blog since 2007. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.

Images Copyright and AI Getty Vs. Stable Diffusion

In the case of Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd, Getty Images sued Stability AI, the developer of the Stable Diffusion generative AI model, alleging that the system had been trained on millions of copyrighted photographs from Getty Images’ websites. Getty Images argued that both the outputs generated by the AI system and the AI model itself infringed copyright. During the proceedings, Getty Images abandoned the claim relating to infringing outputs after the prompts used to generate those outputs were blocked. The High Court then examined whether the Stable Diffusion model itself could constitute an infringing copy and held that the model does not contain or store copies of Getty Images’ photographs and therefore cannot qualify as an infringing copy under UK copyright law.

When Chatbots Sing Songs AI Outputs and Copyright Liability

In the case of GEMA v OpenAI entities operating ChatGPT, the collecting society GEMA sued the operators of a generative AI chatbot for reproducing protected song lyrics through chatbot outputs. The court examined chatbot responses generated after simple prompts asking for song lyrics and compared them with the original lyrics represented by GEMA. The court held that the operators are liable for copyright infringement arising from such outputs, ordered them to refrain from reproducing the lyrics through the chatbot, directed them to disclose the extent of the infringing acts and revenue earned from them, and held them liable to compensate damages.

“Will You Marry Me” Twice Not After a Copyright Assignment

In the case of Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and others, a producer agreed to assign worldwide rights in the film Will You Marry Me in perpetuity. After that assignment, the producer entered into later arrangements for music rights and distribution rights with others. The assignee sued to protect the earlier assignment and stop further exploitation inconsistent with it.

Trademark: ‘One For All’, Distinct For One? Delhi High Court Says Yes

In the case of Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL” for educational publications in Class 16. The Registrar refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark was common, laudatory, and lacked distinctiveness. The Single Judge upheld the refusal. The Division Bench examined whether the expression was inherently distinctive or merely descriptive in the context of books.

Trademark Fit Check: MISS MANGO Wears It Right, MANGO Can’t Block It

In the case of Mohamed Yusuf vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration for a clothing brand using the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’. The Registrar rejected the application citing similarity to the word mark ‘MANGO’. The High Court found the refusal unsustainable, ruling that the marks were not confusingly similar and the generic nature of the word ‘MANGO’ raised questions about its own registrability.

Logo Vs. Word Trademarks: Haveli Logo Trademark Rights Do Not Extend to the Common Word

In the case of Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, the court examined whether long standing use of a brand name and registration of logos could convert a commonly used word into exclusive trademark property. The court considered the nature of the word HAVELI, its widespread use in the hospitality sector, and whether consumers were likely to associate that word with only one restaurant chain. The court rejected the claim that registration of a logo or a composite mark could confer exclusive rights over a common word.

Hashtag, Trade Mark, Defamation: When #THRILLOPHILIA Crossed the Line on Social Media

In the case of Thrillophilia Travel Solutions Private Limited vs Mrs Vishali Maggo, the court drew a clear line between a consumer complaint and the use of a registered trade mark as a hashtag to amplify allegations of fraud and scam on a professional social media platform.

Same MAXO, New Spy: When a Mosquito Repellent Became a Camera and Trade Mark Law Stepped In

In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the court examined whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them online could be justified as resale, or whether such conduct crossed into trade mark infringement, trade dress misuse, and passing off.

Same Hair, Same Care, Same Jasmine: Too Familiar for Trade Mark and Copyright Comfort

In the case of Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care, the court examined whether the defendants’ Jasmine and Hair Protection hair oil products unlawfully copied the distinctive trade dress, logos, and packaging of the plaintiff’s well known Jasmine and Hair and Care hair oil products sold under the Parachute house mark, and granted interim relief to the plaintiff.

You Can’t Live with Liv 333: When Trademark Similarity Turns Costly

In the case of Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench examined an appeal against a final decree passed by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement suit. While affirming the injunction against the use of Liv 333, the Division Bench reiterated settled principles on trademark protection, dominant features, and infringement, and looked at the basis on which damages and costs were imposed.