Delhi High Court | Intellepedia

Super Cassettes Industries v. Myspace Inc and Anr.

The Delhi High Court in Super Cassettes Industries v. Myspace addressed intermediary liability for copyright infringement under Indian law. The court held that internet platforms may be liable for infringing content, especially after receiving notice from the copyright owner.

‘Gene Sequences’ Not Copyright Worthy!

The Delhi High Court held that gene sequences cannot be protected as copyright or confidential information under Indian law. The Court highlighted the need for originality and distinguished gene sequences from computer programs, referencing relevant statutes for clarity.

30 Torrent Sites Blocked, Notices to Makers of Tashkent Files and Dabangg 3, Avengers Playmoji, and more

The Delhi High Court has ordered 30 torrent sites to be blocked for copyright infringement and issued directives to ISPs and government authorities. The post also discusses legal notices to film makers and global developments in copyright enforcement and streaming services.

Publicity Rights in India (Part II)

This article explores the legal framework of publicity rights in India with a focus on digital media and computer games. It analyses hypothetical scenarios to distinguish between free speech and commercial exploitation of celebrity personas.

‘Acquired Distinctiveness’ of Infosys Trademark

The Delhi High Court recognised acquired distinctiveness in the INFOSYS trademark, restraining the defendant from using the mark in its business name. The case highlights the need for strong trademark protection to safeguard a company’s goodwill and reputation.

Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Anil Moolchandani & Ors. , High Court of Delhi

The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Zippo Manufacturing, granting a permanent injunction against the sale of counterfeit lighters infringing its trademark. The Court recognized the distinctiveness of Zippo’s lighter design and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

Who Owns the Castle?

The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark passing off dispute over the CASTLE mark in the beer industry. The court granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, preventing the defendants from using the marks CASTLE and OLDCASTLE, emphasising the importance of protection against misrepresentation.

Can God’s Name be Monopolized? ‘No’ Says the Court

The Delhi High Court found that KRISHNA, as a deity’s name commonly linked to dairy products, cannot be monopolized as a trademark. The judgment highlighted the absence of secondary distinctiveness and set clear boundaries for trademark claims on religious names.

D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House clarified the contours of the right of publicity in India. The case involved unauthorized commercial use of Daler Mehndi’s persona, resulting in findings of infringement, false endorsement, and passing off.

Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.

The case examines whether the Copyright Board can issue interim orders and fix royalties in ongoing disputes under Section 31 of the Copyright Act. The court affirmed the Board’s authority, emphasising the need for interim relief to prevent irreparable harm during lengthy litigation.