Author: Kavya Sadashivan

Kavya is a practising Intellectual Property (IP) Attorney working with the Innovation, Consulting & Strategy Team, at BananaIP Counsels, a well-known IP firm. She has been a regular contributor to Intellepedia, serving as an author, reviewer and publisher, since 2021. She writes articles relating to the IP laws, including recent legal developments, case analysis, analytical insights, and policy commentary. The views expressed in her articles and posts on Intellepedia her own and do not represent those of BananaIP Counsels or its members.

Indian IP Office Schedules Stakeholder Meetings in Kolkata and Chennai on Draft CRI Guidelines

Illustration of four people in a meeting with the text "Stakeholder Meetings in Kolkata and Chennai for Guidelines on Computer-Related Inventions"

The Indian IP Office has scheduled in-person stakeholder meetings in Kolkata and Chennai, after the success of sessions in Mumbai and Delhi. to gather feedback on the Draft Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions (CRI). The initiative will allow stakeholders to share their inputs before the finalisation of the CRI policy framework.

Generative AI Training and Copyright: U.S. Copyright Office’s Pre-Publication Report

Robot reading on a digital tablet and pointing gesture next to text about the U.S. Copyright Office’s pre-publication report on generative AI training released on May 9, 2025.

This post offers a structured summary of Part 3 of the U.S. Copyright Office’s AI report series. It highlights the pre-publication report’s focus on legal concerns surrounding generative AI training and a link to the main report.

Government of India Constitutes Committee on AI and Copyright

Illustration of Government of India's committee members seated at a long table, discussing AI and copyright policy matters.

The DPIIT announced a committee to explore legal and policy challenges at the intersection of AI and copyright. With personnel from the government, academia, and industry, the committee is tasked with reviewing the Copyright Act, 1957, and preparing a detailed working paper.

Indian IP Office Rolls Out Utility for Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright & GI Statistics

A bar chart with blue and teal bars and trend lines, alongside a black text box with the title “Indian IP Office Rolls Out Utility for Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright & GI Statistics” in white font, highlighting the launch of a centralized IP statistics dashboard.

The Indian IP Office has launched an online IP Statistics Dashboard offering real-time data on filings and registrations across IP types. Users can explore patent, trademark, copyright, design, and GI trends with interactive tools. Though provisional, the tool centralizes valuable insights into India’s IP landscape.

ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro upheld

The Delhi High Court upheld ITC’s injunction against Arpita Agro, restraining the company from using the trademark ‘POWRNYM.’ The Court ruled that the mark was deceptively similar to ITC’s ‘NIMYLE’ and ‘JOR-POWR,’ violating trademark rights. The judgment emphasized that contractual obligations and trade dress similarities must be strictly adhered to in trademark disputes.

CGPDTM Headquarters Relocated to New Delhi: Official Notification

Headquartes of Indian Patent office relocated to Delhi

The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has announced the relocation of the CGPDTM headquarters to New Delhi, as per the Gazette of India notification dated February 25, 2025. The new office is now operational at Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Dwarka, New Delhi. This move aims to enhance coordination with central regulatory bodies and improve India’s intellectual property administration.

Thomson Reuters vs ROSS Intelligence : Does training AI models amount to fair use?

The US District Court for Delaware ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that ROSS Intelligence infringed Westlaw’s copyrights by using its headnotes and editorial content for AI training. The Court rejected ROSS’s fair use defense, emphasizing market harm and the need for AI developers to license copyrighted materials. While granting partial summary judgment to Thomson Reuters, the Court left certain copyright expiration claims for jury determination. This decision reinforces copyright protections in legal research and sets a precedent for AI-related copyright disputes.

Knowledge Theft : Property includes Intellectual Property, affirms Supreme court

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation that intellectual property, including research data, qualifies as ‘property’ under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This decision enables victims of caste-based atrocities to claim compensation for loss of intellectual assets. The ruling affirms the protection of knowledge-based assets and expands the legal definition of property under the Act.

Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation case

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Wunderbar Films in its copyright dispute with Netflix over the unauthorized use of behind-the-scenes footage. Netflix’s applications challenging jurisdiction and seeking rejection of the plaint were dismissed. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction was valid, pre-suit mediation was not mandatory due to urgency, and combining statutory and common law remedies was permissible.

ITC obtains injunction against former owners of NIMYLE and JOR-POWR Trademarks

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to ITC Limited, restraining Arpita Agro from using the deceptively similar trademark “POWRNYM.” The case highlights issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and contractual obligations, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.