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.
Read more about Dhanush v. Nayanthara: Netflix denied an exit pass in copyright violation caseAuthor: 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.
ITC obtains injunction against former owners of NIMYLE and JOR-POWR Trademarks
The Delhi High Court granted ITC an interim injunction restraining Arpita Agro from using the mark POWRNYM, finding it deceptively similar to ITC’s NIMYLE and JOR-POWR trademarks. This case highlights the importance of respecting trademark rights and contractual obligations in the Indian legal context.
Read more about ITC obtains injunction against former owners of NIMYLE and JOR-POWR TrademarksCompulsory licensing in copyrights, Al Hamd challenges PPL’s fees
This post examines Al Hamd Tradenation’s challenge to PPL’s license fee structure under Section 31 of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High Court has deferred a final decision, keeping all issues open for future consideration.
Read more about Compulsory licensing in copyrights, Al Hamd challenges PPL’s feesRevocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI
The Delhi High Court dismissed Lava’s attempt to revoke Ericsson’s patents based on alleged misrepresentation. The Court highlighted the high burden of proof needed and found Lava to have failed to demonstrate intentional deceit by Ericsson.
Read more about Revocation of Patent on the ground of misrepresentation – Ericsson vs Lava : Part VI