{"id":66936,"date":"2019-11-21T16:57:11","date_gmt":"2019-11-21T11:27:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/?p=66936"},"modified":"2025-06-27T10:50:37","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T05:20:37","slug":"copyright-infringement-india-amitabh-bachchan-iprs-yrf-madhubala","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/copyright-infringement-india-amitabh-bachchan-iprs-yrf-madhubala\/","title":{"rendered":"Amitabh Bachchan\u2019s Film Accused of Copyright Infringement, IPRS files FIR Against YRF, Madhubala\u2019s Biopic by Imtiaz Ali Put on Hold and more"},"content":{"rendered":"

Amitabh Bachchan\u2019s Film Accused of Copyright Infringement; Supreme Faces Copyright Infringement Suit Over Camo Print; Nirvana Files Copyright Infringement Suit Against Marc Jacobs; IPRS files FIR Against YRF for Allegedly Duping Artists and Musicians; Jay Z Settles Copyright Infringement Lawsuit; Taylor Swift\u2019s Former Label No Longer Blocking Her Live Performances; Madhubala\u2019s Biopic by Imtiaz Ali Put on Hold and more.<\/span><\/p>\n

INTERNATIONAL NEWS<\/span><\/h2>\n

Supreme Faces Copyright Infringement Suit Over Camo Print<\/span><\/h3>\n

Supreme, the American designer clothing, is being sued for allegedly using a copyrighted camouflage print on a range of its clothing apparel. According to the complaint, filed by Montana-based fashion company ASAT Outdoors, Supreme used the camouflage design, owned and registered by ASAT, on its apparel, such as hats, pants, and jackets. The complaint seeks monetary damage, including but not limited to profits made by Supreme from the infringing products, or \u201cstatutory damages\u201d up to USD 150,000 per infringed work, whichever is higher.<\/span><\/p>\n

ASAT however, does not make any claims for trademark infringement in its complaint. If it can demonstrate that its camouflage print is associated by the consumer with its brand, which given ASAT\u2019s expansive retail footprint, including deals with retail giants like Walmart, is not unlikely, a case for trademark protection and consequently, infringement can be made.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court Proceeds with Nirvana Infringement Suit Against Marc Jacobs<\/span><\/h3>\n

A California federal court shot down a motion to dismiss filed by American fashion designer Marc Jacobs. The designer filed this motion to dismiss the copyright and trademark infringement suit filed against him by Nirvana, LLC, the company formed by members of the now-dissolved American rock band Nirvana. Jacobs was alleged to have infringed Nirvana\u2019s copyright and trademark in its \u201cSmiley Face\u201d logo, which Nirvana claims has become associated with the band owing to its use since 1991. Jacobs used the distinctive smiley face image, replacing the eyes with the initials M and J, which was not sufficient to ensure that consumers would not associate Jacob\u2019s re-released \u201cBootleg Redux Grunge\u201d collection with the band.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court upheld Nirvana\u2019s claim on the copyright front, holding that Jacob\u2019s version of the logo was \u2018substantially similar\u2019 to Nirvana\u2019s copyrighted work, noting further that Jacob\u2019s products even combined the smiley face logo with \u201cother distinctive elements of the Nirvana t-shirts, including through the use of yellow lines on black background and a similar type and placement for the text above the image on the clothing\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of its trademark claim, the court held that regardless of whether Nirvana maintained a registration, the band\u2019s LLC had established that it maintains \u201ca valid, protectable trademark in the Happy Face,\u201d due to continuous use of the graphic \u201cduring the past 25 years.\u201d On both fronts, the court deemed that the marks were not dissimilar enough to preclude any confusion on the part of consumers as to the origin and endorsement of the products. The Court will now proceed to hear the arguments for the matter.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jay Z Settles Copyright Infringement Lawsuit<\/span><\/h3>\n

A copyright infringement case filed by American brand management company Iconix Brand Group against American rapper Jay Z and his entertainment agency Roc Nation has been settled out of court. Iconix claimed in the suit that it had paid over USD 200 million for the intellectual property rights for the \u201clicensing and brand management\u201d of the Roc Nation logo. However, without Iconix\u2019s consent or authorisation, the Roc Nation logo was used on a series of baseball caps made by New Era, an American headwear company. This use, Iconix claimed, deliberately undermined and flouted a series of agreements entered into between Iconix and Roc Nation. The matter had escalated over the last two years, via a series of countersuits and accusations of breach and falsification of agreements and financial reports. According to reports, the two sides have now reached a settlement in which Iconix has agreed to sell some of its rights back to Roc Nation for a sum of USD15 million.<\/span><\/p>\n

Taylor Swift\u2019s Former Label No Longer Blocking Her Live Performances<\/span><\/h3>\n

Taylor Swift\u2019s public feud with Big Machine Label Group has finally come to an end. The American company, which is Taylor Swift\u2019s former record label, had been locked in a fight with the singer, who accused the label of preventing her from performing her songs in the upcoming 2019 American Music Awards, even taking to the social media site Tumblr to share her frustration. The record label reportedly even refused to license her songs to Netflix for an upcoming biopic on Swift. However, Big Machine has now announced that it has decided to grant all licenses of its artists\u2019 performances to stream post show and re-broadcast on mutually approved platforms, which would include the American Music Awards.<\/span><\/p>\n

Swift had received widespread support before Big Machine acquiesced, including from the Music Artists Coalition, a musician advocacy group recently founded by American executive Irving Azoff along with musicians including Don Henley, Anderson Paak, Meghan Trainor, and Dave Matthews, which said that the label\u2019s move to block Swift\u2019s performance and biopic would be unprecedented. Swift also received the backing of 2020 American Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. The fracas, however, now seems to have come to a reasonable close.<\/span><\/p>\n

NATIONAL NEWS<\/span><\/h2>\n

Amitabh Bachchan\u2019s Film Accused of Copyright Infringement<\/span><\/h3>\n

Jhund, the upcoming film starring Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan, has been accused of copyright infringement by Hyderabad-based filmmaker Nandi Chinni Kumar. The filmmaker claims to have bought the exclusive rights from Akhilesh Paul, a slum soccer player who was the Indian captain at the Homeless World Cup, to make a movie on his life, which Kumar tentatively titled Slum Soccer. He even claims that he has registered the script and story with the Telangana Cinema Writers Association on June 11, 2018. Jhund is a film based on the life of Slum Soccer founder Vijay Barse, who is Akilesh Paul\u2019s coach. Kumar therefore, claims that, the portrayal of Paul and his story is a major aspect of Jhund, violating Kumar\u2019s copyrights.<\/span>
\nAfter alleging that he has been cheated and criminally intimidated by the makers of the film, Kumar has sent legal notices to the film\u2019s director and producer, Nagraj Manjule, producer Krishan Kumar, T-Series Chairman and Managing Director Bhushan Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan and Vijay Barse. Kumar further claims that he has received a reply to the notice only from T-Series, the film\u2019s production company, but that too, was \u201cvery vague\u201d. Following this, Kumar now plans to approach the courts to prevent the film from being screened in theatres, on television, and on all digital platforms.<\/span><\/p>\n

IPRS files FIR Against Yash Raj Films (YRF) for Allegedly Duping Artists and Musicians<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS), a body made up of composers, lyricists, and music producers, has filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police against the Indian film production company YRF. The FIR accuses YRF of illegitimately pocketing INR 100 crore in music royalties belonging to members of the IPRS. It is claimed in the FIR, that YRF pressured artists to sign illegal agreements, preventing them from collecting royalties from telecom companies, radio stations and music streaming platforms. The FIR was registered under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and other sections of Copyright Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

Madhubala\u2019s Biopic by Imtiaz Ali Put on Hold<\/span><\/h3>\n

Indian film director Imtiaz Ali has been faced with a roadblock in his move to make a biopic on the late Indian actress Madhubala. After having issued a public notice announcing that he had acquired the actress\u2019 life rights from her sister Madhur Brij Bhushan, the director has now received a legal notice from another sister, Kaniz Bulsara. The notice claimed that even though Bhushan had given a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the life rights, Bulsara had not done the same. An industry source said that there are often several parties involved when it comes to the life rights of a deceased celebrity, and unless permissions from all these parties have been obtained, one cannot successfully acquire the said rights. Imtiaz Ali had announced plans to make a film or a web series, but as of now, Bulsara does not wish the same to be made, reportedly because there are several stories of Madhubala\u2019s life that Bulsara does not want revealed in this manner.<\/span><\/p>\n

Authored and compiled by\u00a0 Neharika Vhatkar (Associate, BananaIP Counsels) and Param Gupta\u00a0(Legal Intern)<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Entertainment Law News Bulletin is brought to you jointly by the Entertainment Law and Consulting\/Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to\u00a0contact@bananaip.com\u00a0\u00a0with the subject: Ent Law News.<\/span><\/p>\n

Disclaimer: Please note that the news bulletin has been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP\u2019s reporters may not have verified all the news published in the bulletin. You may write to\u00a0contact@bananaip.com\u00a0 for corrections and take down.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This entertainment law bulletin reviews major copyright infringement cases, including disputes involving Amitabh Bachchan\u2019s film, IPRS versus YRF, and Madhubala\u2019s biopic. It also covers international cases such as the Nirvana logo lawsuit and Jay Z\u2019s recent settlement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":7,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6,22,7,708],"tags":[701,31,10771,1784,10772,3830,10773,434],"class_list":["post-66936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","category-ip-commercialization-licensing","category-media-and-entertainment-law","category-publicity-rights-celebrity-rights","tag-amitabh-bachchan","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-indian-entertainment-law","tag-iprs","tag-madhubala-biopic","tag-music-royalties","tag-nirvana-lawsuit","tag-yash-raj-films"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66936"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66936\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140420,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66936\/revisions\/140420"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}