Intellepedia | Page 2 of 307

Gen AI, Copyrights, and Hybrid Licensing in India Why the Assumptions May Not Sustain the Model

The DPIIT committee’s proposal for a hybrid licensing model for AI training rests on a set of assumptions about creativity, copyright ownership, collective management, and regulatory control. A closer examination of these assumptions raises important questions about whether the model can deliver the balance it seeks to achieve. In particular, the model appears to strengthen the position of copyright owning entities while offering limited benefits to authors and creators, introduces administrative complexity in a rapidly evolving technological space, and relies heavily on institutional structures that have historically faced governance and efficiency challenges in India. Against this backdrop, the article explores whether India would be better served by an open and carefully calibrated AI training exception, supported by a statutory right that directly recognises and strengthens authors and creators, rather than by an expansive licensing regime built on contested assumptions.

Trademark Associate Opportunity at BananaIP Counsels

Trademark Associate position at BananaIP Counsels in Bangalore with responsibility for trademark and copyright prosecution, oppositions, renewals and related advisory work. Open to candidates with hands-on IP experience and good drafting, research and client handling skills.

Is a Smarter Scooter Frame Patentable? Court Orders Rethink on Inventive Step

In the case of TVS Motor Company vs Patent Office, a scooter maker’s patent claim for a simple yet novel frame design was rejected for lacking inventive step. The court disagreed with the reasoning and ordered the Patent Office to re-examine the application using a proper test.

No Music License, No New Year Party: Why Hotels Must Tune In Legally

In the case of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited vs Chocolate Hotels Private Limited, the petitioner alleged that Chocolate Hotels planned a New Year’s Eve celebration on 31st December 2025 featuring live music and DJ performances without acquiring the necessary music license. Despite multiple notices, the hotel remained unresponsive. The court, finding a strong prima facie case, passed an interim injunction prohibiting the unlicensed use of copyrighted music.

Copied Tractor Parts, Not the Drawings? That’s Not Infringement

Can you infringe copyright without ever seeing the original work? In a case about tractor parts and engineering drawings, the Madras High Court answered no. It ruled that producing similar tractor components without accessing or copying the original technical drawings does not violate copyright—even if the final parts match in size or shape.

SoEasy™: Not So Easy to Trademark

SoEasy shows that it is not always so easy to refuse a mark as laudatory: once the mental-leap test was applied, the SoEasy trademark comfortably cleared the distinctiveness hurdle.

Indian Express vs New Indian Express: Who Owns The Trademark?

In the case of The Indian Express P Ltd vs Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt Ltd, the Bombay High Court considered the terms of a court-recorded settlement to decide if the Defendant’s use of a permitted title in Mumbai breached trademark rights held by the Plaintiff.

UNPLUG YOURSELF Allowed, BOULT Logos Still Blocked

In the case of Exotic Mile vs Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, the court considered claims of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to competing marks used for audio devices. It limited interim relief to the scope of the pleadings and clarified the legal position on unpleaded claims.

Shalimar Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case between Shalimar Chemical Works and Edible Products, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—used for products sold under the Shalimar mark was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off, even if the rival product carried a different brand name.

Old Music, New Platforms, No Rights: 1977 Bhikari Bal Odia Music Agreement Limitations

In a dispute concerning copyright in Odia devotional music, the Calcutta High Court declined interim protection to the petitioner who claimed exclusive rights in the song “Sathi Pauti Bhoga” through agreements with Bhikari Bal and Radhanath Das. The court held that the agreements were of limited duration, royalty obligations were not fulfilled, and allegations of forgery raised serious questions of fact.