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.

Copyright Enforcement, Quick Court Orders, and the Rise of Intimidatory Tactics

Indian courts have made copyright enforcement faster and more effective. But, the same court friendly environment is now being used by some copyright owners to send intimidatory notices, make inflated claims, and force settlements. Unless controlled, this troll like behaviour may harm the credibility and purpose of the copyright system.

No Copyright in a Golf Swing of Ideas

In the case of Gurbaaz Pratap Singh Mann vs Kunwar Raghav Bhandari and Ors., the Delhi High Court looked at whether the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s protected expression in a golf format. It held that similarities related to ideas and game mechanics do not amount to infringement. It found that the defendants had not reproduced any protectable expression from the plaintiff’s work.

Copy Paste Creativity Fails the Originality Test

In the case of Bombay Metal Works (P) Limited vs Tara Singh Prop. R.S. Industries (Regd), a dispute arose over competing packaging designs for bicycle parts. The petitioner challenged the respondent’s copyright registrations on the ground that the designs were copied. The court looked at whether the impugned works were original and whether the registrations could stand.

Patent Attorneys: From Strategic Professionals to Ordinary Vendors? The Changing Soul of India’s Patent Ecosystem

For a long time, patent attorneys occupied an important place in India’s innovation and business ecosystem because they helped companies identify protectable value, convert innovation into legal rights, and build patent portfolios capable of supporting business growth and financial success. Today, that position is changing. As artificial intelligence is reshaping patent work, cost pressures are intensifying, quality concerns are weakening, and regulatory as well as contractual burdens are increasing, the patent attorney is facing a future in which specialised professional standing is giving way to a vendor driven role. If that change continues, it will not only affect patent attorneys, but may also weaken the patent ecosystem itself and its contribution to innovation driven growth, commercialisation, and knowledge based progress.

Isha and Sadhguru: Jurisdiction and Defamation in the Age of Online Content

In the case of Isha Foundation v. Google LLC & Ors., a charitable trust and its founder, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, challenged online videos and articles that allegedly harmed their reputation. The dispute involved jurisdiction, authorization, limitation, and interim restraint on publication. The court also considered the balance between free speech and the right to reputation.

TV9’s News Clips Fair Use or Copyright Abuse

In the case of TV9, namely Associated Broadcasting Company Limited v Google LLC and Others, the broadcaster faced multiple YouTube copyright strikes for using short clips of real world events in its news programmes. TV9 argued that the clips were minimal, used only to report current events, and in several instances came from licensed sources, while some disputed clips were alleged to be used without licence only in a limited and illustrative manner. The court examined whether that use crossed the line into infringement.

Artificial Intelligence in IP Practice: Managing Psychological Trauma, Stress, and Anxiety in a Changing Landscape

Artificial intelligence is affecting almost every sector, and intellectual property is no exception. In the IP profession, a substantial part of the work delivered relates to research, documentation, drafting, and management of files, all of which can now be done by AI either fully or partially. As AI begins to enter these areas, it changes not only how work is done, but also how professional contribution is perceived and valued. This shift has consequences that are not only professional and economic, but also psychological.

Employment First, IPL Later, Copyright Nowhere

Copyright Authorship and Moral Rights Dispute

In the case of Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani & Ors., the dispute arose from claims over the IPL Awards event, its presentation, and related written material. The plaintiff said that he had developed the event, reduced it into writing, and was entitled to authorship credit, moral rights, and commercial benefits, but the court rejected those claims after examining the employment relationship, Section 17(c), Section 57, the nature of the material, and the MOU.

Copyright Lives On, Even Before Probate

In the case of Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v. Smt. Archana Debnath & Anr., the dispute arose from alleged publication and sale of copyrighted literary and artistic works of a deceased author after expiry of an earlier publishing arrangement. The publisher argued that the suit could not proceed because probate had not yet been granted and because an earlier suit had already been dismissed for default, but the court rejected both objections at the interim stage.

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.