In a recent case involving the iconic film Disco Dancer, the Bombay High Court examined whether a stage musical and a proposed new film were a remake, an adaptation, or a sequel. The Court held that the musical was an adaptation covered by Shemaroo’s rights, but refused to restrain the new film since Shemaroo had not pleaded infringement in its plaint. The order pointed out the difference between remake, adaptation, and sequel under Indian copyright law.
Read more about Disco Dancer Copyright in Court: Remake, Adaptation, or Sequel?Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala
Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the Rocks
In the case of Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the Supreme Court of India considered whether the respondent’s use of the mark “LONDON PRIDE” for whisky prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The appellants alleged that the respondent copied elements of their registered marks “BLENDERS PRIDE”, “IMPERIAL BLUE”, and “SEAGRAM’S”, including their packaging, colour scheme, and embossed bottles. After reviewing the arguments and legal framework, the Court declined to grant interim relief, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and that the term “PRIDE” could not be monopolised.
Read more about Trademark Pride and Precedent: Blenders Pride, London Pride, and Imperial Blue on the RocksPatented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve Sales
In the case of Aquestia Limited vs Automat Industries Private Limited & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing and selling their ‘Hydromat’ valves. The court held that even a patented product can infringe an earlier patent, and found that the defendants’ valves incorporated the core features of the plaintiff’s fluid control valve patent claims.
Read more about Patented But Still Infringing: Delhi HC Stops Hydromat Valve SalesMusic Creation and Copyright Transfers
In the case of Rajesh Jhaveri v. Saregama India Limited & Anr., the Bombay High Court dismissed a bid for interim injunction restraining Saregama from exploiting songs from three albums. The Court held that assignment agreements executed in the late 1980s granted broad rights to exploit the works “by any and every means w
Read more about Music Creation and Copyright TransfersRefusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings
In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.
Read more about Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearingsWill Intellectual Property Still Matter in 2034?
The Pathfinders 2034 report looks ahead to two possible futures for intellectual property — one fragmented and dominated by AI at the cost of human creativity, and another connected, inclusive, and balanced. While it sets out clear action points for governments, it rests on two untested assumptions: that IP drives innovation and creativity, and that it must remain central, merely adapting to new technologies. Without asking whether IP truly encourages human ingenuity in an AI driven world, or recognising its costs to access, public welfare, and follow on work, the vision risks repeating old mistakes. What is needed is a balanced, evidence based view that serves creativity, innovation, and the public good together.
Read more about Will Intellectual Property Still Matter in 2034?Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement Suit
In Deepak Kumar Khemka v. Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal & Ors., the Delhi High Court held that filing a trademark application does not amount to trademark infringement. The Court dismissed the suit in limine, reiterating that infringement under the Trade Marks Act arises only from use in trade – not from proposed registration.
Read more about Trademark Application Alone Not Enough for Infringement SuitNo Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High Court
In the case of Kabushiki Kaisha Toyota Jidoshokki v. LMW Limited, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction after the expiry of the patent in suit. The Court held that patent rights lapse with expiry and cannot be enforced thereafter.
Read more about No Injunction After Patent Expiry, Holds Delhi High CourtDelhi HC Remands Oxidation Process Patent Rejection, Cites Invalid Section 2(1)(j) and 59 Findings
In the case of Treibacher Industrie AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of a patent application for a catalytic oxidation process. It held that the amended claims qualified as a process invention and were within the permissible scope of amendment under Section 59.
Read more about Delhi HC Remands Oxidation Process Patent Rejection, Cites Invalid Section 2(1)(j) and 59 FindingsAI Law and Regulation by Jon M Garon: A Highly Recommended Read
In his book Artificial Intelligence Law and Regulation in a Nutshell, Professor Jon M Garon lays out how legal systems are responding to the rise of AI. The book is clear, practical, and highly relevant. With permission, we are sharing Chapter 9, which outlines a future facing roadmap for AI regulation. This book is a must read for anyone working with or impacted by AI.
Read more about AI Law and Regulation by Jon M Garon: A Highly Recommended Read