Delhi Excessive Courtroom Shields Information Broadcaster TV9 from YouTube Copyright Strikes, Affirms Truthful Dealing and Bars Groundless Threats
In Related Broadcasting Firm Ltd. (TV9) v. Google LLC & Ors., the Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted abstract judgment in favour of TV9, declaring that its use of temporary video excerpts of pure calamities and international occasions inside structured information programmes didn’t quantity to copyright infringement, because the utilization constituted honest dealing below Part 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act for reporting present occasions and was in any case de minimis in nature. The Courtroom famous that the extracts have been minimal, embedded inside substantial commentary and evaluation, and in a number of cases sourced below a legitimate APTN licence, none of which have been rebutted because the defendants selected to not seem. Importantly, the Courtroom held that issuance of YouTube copyright strikes and a subsequently voluntarily dismissed US lawsuit didn’t quantity to “commencing and prosecuting” an motion below the proviso to Part 60, thereby rendering the defendants’ threats actionable as groundless. The Courtroom restrained the defendants from issuing additional copyright threats and decreed the go well with, whereas recognising that YouTube, as an middleman, was not required to adjudicate the deserves of infringement disputes.
Learn order right here.
Famous person not above regulation: Karnataka HC criticises Ranveer Singh for feedback on Kantara deity however grants interim aid
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom on February 24, 2026 advised Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh that he can’t, by advantage of being a star, harm spiritual sentiments of a group and that he should, when making public appearances, stay cautious of his phrases and actions.
The remarks have been made whereas listening to the actor’s plea to quash an FIR registered towards him over his mimicry of a personality in ‘Kantara: Chapter 1’ film in the course of the 56th IFFI Pageant of India organised by the Authorities of Goa final 12 months. Within the occasion the petitioner is acknowledged to have mimicked position of actor Rishab Shetty within the film and referred to the deity the phrases ‘feminine ghost’.
The FIR was registered towards Singh for allegedly hurting spiritual sentiments by mocking and insulting the sacred ‘Daiva’ (Bhoota Kola) custom depicted within the film.
On the outset it was admitted from Ranveer Singh’s aspect that Singh’s assertion was “utterly insensitive”. It was submitted that petitioner has been reckless and has tendered apology on mistake dedicated by him, after coming to know the significance of ‘Chamundi Daiva’ whom he had mimicked on the stage and had known as it a feminine ghost.
Until March 02,2026 the Courtroom has restrained the State from taking any coercive steps towards Singh offered petitioner cooperates with investigation.
Singh’s plea challenges an FIR registered on the grievance of an advocate, below Sections 196 (Selling enmity between completely different teams on grounds of faith, race, native land, residence, language, and many others., and doing acts prejudicial to upkeep of concord), 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, meant to outrage spiritual emotions of any class by insulting its faith or spiritual beliefs), 302(Uttering phrases, and many others., with deliberate intent to wound spiritual emotions of any particular person) of BNS 2023.
The plea additional seeks quashing of a January 23 order handed by the Extra Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace below Part 175(3) BNSS 2023 directing investigation into the grievance filed towards the actor.
Singh’s plea additionally, within the interim, seeks keep of additional investigation within the FIR. Part 175(3) BNSS empowers Justice of the Peace to order investigation right into a grievance made below Part 210 BNSS after making inquiry as he thinks crucial and submission made on this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom protects character rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has handed a john doe order defending the character rights of singer Jubin Nautiyal.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the singer restraining a number of AI platforms, web sites and e-commerce intermediaries from unauthorized use and industrial exploitation of his character and publicity rights.
The plaintiff mentions important particulars as to how a few of the defendants whom are AI platforms, utilised refined machine studying algorithms, to create audio and visible contents, mimicking and reproducing the plaintiff’s options corresponding to his identify, voice, method of singing and many others. for unauthorised industrial/monetary positive factors. The plaintiff claims that such platforms additionally clone varied character attributes of the plaintiff unauthorisedly.
Moreover, the plaintiff provides detailed references to sure digital design platforms, that are indulging in sale of merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s identify, picture, likeness and caricature. Furthermore, E-commerce giants like Flipkart and Amazon, have been additionally exploiting the plaintiff’s publicity rights, goodwill and status and many others. by promoting, selling and providing on the market varied merchandising gear.
The Courtroom handed the interim order in a go well with filed by Nautiyal towards varied defendants together with john does (unknown entities), observing that the singer had made out a prima facie robust case for cover of his character attributes. It added that the dent and injury to the picture and character of Nautiyal, prima facie, gave the impression to be actual and current.
Learn order right here.
Kerala Excessive Courtroom Lifts Keep On Launch Of ‘The Kerala Story 2’ Film; Stays Single Bench Order
Timeline
- The Single Choose Bench of the Kerala Excessive Courtroom on Thursday (February 26, 2026) stayed launch of the film Kerala Story 2: Goes Past, following pleas difficult its censor certification. The movie was slated to hit the theatres on February, 2027, i.e., the day after the order for keep was pronounced.
- The Division Bench of the Kerala Excessive Courtroom in enchantment on Friday (February 27, 2026) paved manner for launch of the film ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Past’.
Order of the Single Choose- ‘Potential To Disturb Communal Concord’, CBFC requested to Re- Study
The Singe Choose Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerela Excessive Courtroom noticed that the petitioners in two of the writ petitions have sufficiently proved their locus standi, particular person grievances and the maintainability of the pleas. It was significantly famous that the producer was not eager on the Courtroom watching the film and due to this fact, the Courtroom can’t substitute its view with that of the statutory physique, i.e., the Central Board of Movie Certification (CBFC).
The Choose additional noticed that the CBFC prima facie ignored the Central Authorities’s tips towards presentation of visuals contemptuous of racial, spiritual or different teams and of visuals that promote communal, anti-national perspective or endanger public order.
A course was handed to the Central Authorities to think about, inside 2 weeks, the revision petition filed by one of many petitioners earlier than the CBFC Chairperson. The CBFC and the producer was directed to make sure that the mentioned film isn’t launched for public viewership for a interval of 15 days from at this time.
Although the producer’s counsel produced a judgment saying interim aid can’t be granted when the Excessive Courtroom declines to entertain a plea exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in view of existence of different treatment, the Courtroom felt that interim keep of the film is critical within the current circumstances and noticed that it had not refused to entertain the plea.
Beforehand, although the Courtroom had expressed its willingness to look at the film earlier than deciding the case, the producer was not eager on the identical and his counsel had submitted that the matter could be argued on deserves. It had thereafter heard detailed arguments.
The petitioners within the circumstances had argued that the certification to the film was granted with out duly complying with the statutory mandate below the Cinematograph Act. It was contended that the title of the film mixed with the narratives portrayed within the movie, together with compelled conversions, terrorism, would stigmatise the complete area of Kerala. They argued that the content material of the film is such that to incite ardour and communal violence.
Learn order of Single Choose right here.
Order of Division Bench: CBFC Seen Movie In Full, Certification Can’t Be Faulted On Foundation Of Teaser Alone
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan stayed the one choose order which had stayed its launch scheduled on 27th February, 2026 and posted the case after two weeks. The Courtroom handed the order within the writ appeals most popular by producer Vipul Amrutlal Shah towards the widespread order of the Single Choose staying the discharge of the film for 15 days.
The Division Bench held an pressing listening to of the writ appeals at 7:30 p.m. on 26 February, 2026, simply hours after the Single Choose had handed the interim order. After an in depth listening to, the Bench had reserved its verdict.
The Appellants had argued that it was the prerogative of the storyteller to inform the story that he desires and which social evil he desires to handle in a film. It was additional contended that courts have, up to now, refused to intrude when different religions’ social evils have been portrayed in films and the identical view needs to be taken on this case as properly. It was significantly emphasised that when the prequel of the film, which was primarily based on Kerala alone, was subjected to litigation, earlier than the Excessive Courts and the Supreme Courtroom, the film was not stayed. Now, the current film has protagonists from different States as properly, together with Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, there was no want for an order towards launch.
The Appellants canvassed {that a} film can’t shake the tenets of a faith or trigger disruption of communal concord. He additional argued that the current film by no means denigrates Kerala. It was argued that industrial disruption can curtail free speech, and destroy the prospects of a filmmaker.
The Division Bench put aside the order and emphasised that it was admitted undeniable fact that the CBFC had seen the film in its entirety earlier than issuing certification and the petitioners had not watched the total movie. The Bench held that after the statutory authority has examined the movie in full and granted certification below the Cinematograph Act, 1952, there arises a prima facie presumption that the Board has utilized its thoughts in accordance with Part 5B and the related tips.
The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Courtroom’s ruling in Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2018) 1 SCC 761], the place the apex courtroom held that after the certification is granted by the CBFC, there’s prima facie a presumption that the authority involved has taken under consideration all the rules together with public order. Reliance was additionally positioned on Atul Mishra v. Union of India and others [W.P.(C)No.181 of 2026 dated 19.02.2026] which reiterated that apprehensions of regulation and order points can’t justify halting the screening of a movie cleared by the professional physique.
The courtroom additional famous that the producer had carried out insertions, excisions, and modifications as directed by the CBFC and therefore the Board had duly utilized its thoughts earlier than granting certification.
Learn order of the Division bench right here.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom restrains sale of counterfeits of LexisNexis textbooks
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted a short lived injunction in favour of LexisNexis, restraining Parth Regulation Home and others from printing, distributing, or promoting counterfeit copies of its authorized textbooks. Justice Jyoti Singh noticed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that interim safety was warranted pending additional proceedings.
The go well with issues three main textbooks revealed by the plaintiff: Pollock & Mulla-The Indian Contract & Particular Reduction Acts (seventeenth Version), NS Bindra-Interpretation of Statutes (Thirteenth Version), and Mulla-The Code of Civil Process (Twentieth Version).
In keeping with Lexis Nexis by advantage of lengthy, steady and in depth use, the titles of those books together with the names of the authors, have come to be related to it. The books are immensely widespread amongst college students and professionals and luxuriate in a considerable market status.
It was alleged that the defendants have been engaged in printing, distributing, and promoting counterfeit textbooks below the plaintiff’s registered emblems. The Courtroom recorded that the investigation revealed that Parth Regulation Home is a retailer of the infringing textbooks, whereas the opposite defendant is engaged in manufacturing and distribution.
The plaintiff contended that these publications copied each the textual content and the registered emblems and that the counterfeit books have been actual replicas of the originals, albeit of inferior high quality. It was additional argued that the excellence between the unique and counterfeit books may very well be seen from the holograms, which within the counterfeit copies may very well be worn out by rubbing, and from variations in printing high quality, binding and QR code performance.
Agreeing with the submissions, until the following date of listening to, the Courtroom restrained the defendants from publishing, promoting, providing on the market, promoting, straight or not directly dealing in publication, sale of books which can be substantial reproductions of the plaintiff’s textbooks, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and tarnishment of its status.
Learn order right here.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Defending ‘TOI’ Mark Towards Impersonating Social Media Accounts
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Bennett Coleman and Firm Restricted restraining using the marks TIMES OF INDIA, TOI MOVIES, TOI_MOVIES and TOIMOVIES_, or any similar or deceptively comparable mark, by unauthorised social media account operators.
The order handed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela famous that “The Occasions of India” was recognised as a widely known trademark by the Commerce Marks Registry in 2024.
The corporate alleged that sure accounts, together with @toimovies_, have been impersonating its model throughout Instagram, Fb, Threads, X, and YouTube. It mentioned the operators had “slavishly copied the plaintiff’s TOI distinctive pink round emblem” to create a false affiliation. It additional alleged that the accounts have been monetizing their status via a “calculated scheme of fraud”, together with circulating a fee card for paid promotions. The corporate additionally claimed the accounts embedded a hyperlink to the official Occasions of India web site to create belief.
The Courtroom noticed, that the plaintiff would endure irreparable loss and harm to not solely its status and goodwill however the monetary and financial loss to harmless intending advertisers from the general public generally, which will not be adequately compensated in financial phrases in case ex parte advert interim injunction isn’t granted. The courtroom restrained the operators, and anybody performing on their behalf, from utilizing the impugned marks as emblems, commerce names or logos, or as a part of domains, social media handles, posts, or different digital or bodily media, together with for content material creation and reporting regarding the leisure business.
It additionally directed the involved social media intermediaries to dam, droop, and take down the infringing accounts and to reveal the entire Fundamental Subscriber Data of the account holders inside three weeks.
Learn order right here.
Delhi Excessive Courtroom Protects Swami Ramdev’s Persona Rights, Restrains AI Deepfakes
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of yoga guru Swami Ramdev, restraining the unauthorised use of his identify, voice, picture, likeness and distinctive fashion in AI-generated deepfakes, fabricated endorsements and different industrial content material.
Within the order handed by Justice Jyoti Singh, the Courtroom famous that Ramdev is a widely known and famend character within the fields of yoga and ayurvedic drugs, in India and overseas and that, owing to his contributions, he has earned a formidable goodwill and status.
On inspecting the impugned content material, together with AI-generated movies and altered pictures, the Courtroom noticed that the unauthorized creation and circulation of deepfake movies and social media webpages depicting the Plaintiff as endorsing merchandise, cures or medicines with which Plaintiff has no affiliation, in its prima facie view constitutes misappropriation and exploitation of the Plaintiff’s goodwill, amounting to passing off.
The Courtroom additional recorded that a few of the digitally created publications comprise statements or messages, endorsements in Plaintiff’s identify, likeness and voice, which have an effect on his public picture and should tarnish his credibility and undermine the belief reposed in him. It added that the misinformation had wider implications.
Ramdev had submitted that he found “in depth and persevering with cases of unauthorized digital use and misrepresentation as additionally exploitation of his identify, picture, likeness and persona throughout a number of on-line platforms, together with YouTube, Fb and e-commerce web sites.
The Courtroom additionally took word of particular cases, together with a video uploaded on YouTube “displaying Plaintiff endorsing a liquor model, observing that such modified depictions ridiculed and trivialised his persona.
Throughout the listening to, counsel for X Corp argued that a number of URLs constituted satire, parody and lampooning, that are permissible sides of freedom of speech below Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure, and submitted that some posts have been merely “a commentary on these newsworthy occasions of public significance” regarding Ramdev’s previous statements on allopathic drugs.
Meta Platforms submitted {that a} international blocking injunction couldn’t be granted since that difficulty is pending earlier than a Division Bench of the Excessive Courtroom. Baba Ramdev acknowledged that he was not urgent for a worldwide injunction at this stage and would limit the aid sought inside India.
Holding that the stability of comfort lay in Ramdev’s favour and that he would endure irreparable hurt in any other case, the Courtroom restrained the defendants from utilizing his identify, voice, picture, likeness or distinctive fashion for industrial or private acquire. The order expressly covers AI-generated content material, deepfake movies, voice-cloned audio and metaverse environments.
The Courtroom additionally restrained the defendants from importing, manufacturing, promoting or promoting items or companies utilizing his persona in a way amounting to passing off, dilution or copyright infringement. Particular instructions have been issued to Google (YouTube), Amazon India, Meta Platforms, X Corp and Pinterest to take down, disable and block recognized URLs inside 72 hours of receipt of the order. The Division of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Data Expertise have been additionally directed to difficulty crucial instructions to disable and block sure URLs.
Learn order right here.
Jammu courtroom bars 18 cable operators from rebroadcasting JioStar exhibits, sports activities content material
A courtroom in Jammu has restrained 18 cable operators throughout Jammu & Kashmir from rebroadcasting dwell sports activities and leisure content material of JioStar India Personal Restricted with out authorization.
Principal District Choose RN Watal handed the order on a civil go well with filed by JioStar looking for everlasting injunction and damages of ₹2 crore for alleged infringement of its copyright and broadcast copy rights.
JioStar submitted that it holds unique broadcast and distribution rights for over 100 tv channels in a number of languages and has secured unique media rights for a number of main sporting occasions via agreements with the Board of Management for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The corporate alleged that regardless of termination of its Subscription Licence Settlement (SLA) with one of many defendants (Take One) as a result of non-payment of dues and subsequent disconnection of indicators in December 2025, it continued re-transmitting its channels and dwell sports activities content material.
It was additional alleged that the defendants illegally downlinked channels through DD Free Dish and rebroadcast them to subscribers, together with protection of time-bound occasions such because the TATA Girls’s Premier League 2026 and the New Zealand Tour of India 2026.
Such acts violate provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Cable Tv Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, in addition to the Cable Tv Networks Guidelines, 1994, which mandate written authorization from broadcasters for retransmission, it was argued.
After listening to the counsel and inspecting the information, the Courtroom noticed that JioStar’s utility for interim aid was supported by an affidavit and documentary materials, together with video clips displaying alleged unauthorised broadcasts.
It, thus, restrained the 18 recognized cable operators, together with unknown cable operators (impleaded as John Doe), from retransmitting, rebroadcasting, disseminating, or speaking JioStar’s content material.
The matter will probably be heard subsequent on March 12.
Learn order right here.
Supreme Courtroom stays copyright case over music in seven movies together with Salangai Oli
The Supreme Courtroom has stayed proceedings in a long-running copyright dispute in regards to the music of seven traditional South Indian movies, together with Salangai Oli (Saagara Sangamam) and Shankarabharanam. The case, Saregama India Ltd. v. Sreedevi Video Company, issues competing claims over possession and exploitation rights within the sound recordings of those movies, whose music continues to generate industrial worth via streaming and tv broadcasts.
On February 26, a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan stayed the Madras Excessive Courtroom’s November 2025 order, which had allowed an injunction declare towards Saregama to proceed. The keep halts additional proceedings till the following listening to scheduled for April 2026.
Sreedevi Video Company had filed a industrial go well with in 2014 asserting absolute possession of audio copyrights primarily based on two task agreements allegedly executed in July 2008 with Poornodaya Film Creations and Poornodaya Artwork Creations. It sought a everlasting injunction restraining Saregama from exploiting the recordings. Saregama disputed this declare, arguing that the rights had already been assigned via agreements executed in 1978 and 1979 in favour of Sea Information for 60 years, which have been subsequently transferred to Saregama (then Gramophone Firm of India Ltd.) in 2000 in perpetuity.
A Single Choose of the Madras Excessive Courtroom dismissed Sreedevi’s go well with in 2022, holding that the declaration of possession declare was barred by limitation since the reason for motion arose in 2010. Whereas a Division Bench upheld this discovering, it allowed the injunction difficulty to proceed independently.
Earlier than the Supreme Courtroom, Saregama argued that an injunction couldn’t survive and not using a legitimate declaration of title and likewise challenged the legality of the 2008 assignments. The Courtroom’s keep preserves the established order pending examination of possession and limitation points.
Learn order right here.
No Monopoly Over Phrase ‘Forest’ Until It Has Secondary That means: Delhi Excessive Courtroom Refuses To Halt Child Forest
Holding there could be no monopoly over the phrase “FOREST” with out stringent proof that it has acquired a secondary which means, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the luxurious Ayurvedic model Forest Necessities, permitting a more moderen entrant, Child Forest, to proceed utilizing ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA’ marks.
In a judgment pronounced on February 27, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the Single Bench’s resolution to refuse an interim order of injunction towards Child Forest, discovering that the established model couldn’t declare an unique monopoly over the dictionary phrase “Forest.”
“’FOREST’ being a dictionary phrase, to say any monopoly over the identical, stringent proof take a look at of getting required a secondary which means in the identical could be required from the plaintiff/appellant, the courtroom clarified.
Mountain Valley Springs India Personal Restricted filed the enchantment to problem a judgment of the Single Bench that refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents from utilizing the marks “BABY FOREST” and “BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA.”
The enchantment challenged a judgment of a discovered Single Choose of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom which dismissed the appellant’s purposes for an interim injunction. Mountain Valley Springs India Personal Restricted submitted that it has used the “FOREST ESSENTIALS” mark repeatedly since 2000, reaching a formidable status with annual gross sales exceeding Rs. 425 crores. The corporate alleged that Child Forest Ayurveda had dishonestly rebranded itself from its authentic company identify to imitate Forest Necessities’ identification and capitalize on its goodwill.
To show precise confusion, the Forest Necessities introduced proof together with Google search predictions that related the 2 manufacturers and inquiries from luxurious lodge chains like Hyatt and Oberoi asking if the businesses have been associated. The appellant contended that as a result of the merchandise, corresponding to oils, soaps, and lotions, are similar, the next diploma of distinctiveness was required for the respondent’s branding.
In response, Child Forest submitted that “FOREST” is a typical dictionary phrase used all through the beauty and skincare business to suggest that elements are natural, natural, or related to Ayurveda. They asserted that as Forest Necessities registration is for the composite mark “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” it can’t legally dissect the mark to say an unique proper over a descriptive part. They additional argued that it operates in a specialised area of interest of child care merchandise, whereas Forest Necessities’ major status is for grownup merchandise, and that their respective logos, a sapling for the respondent versus a mature tree for the appellant, are visually distinct.
Counting on an earlier Supreme Courtroom precedent, the Courtroom reiterated that the foundational precept of trademark regulation is the “anti-dissection rule,” which requires marks to be in contrast of their entirety slightly than as particular person elements. The Bench noticed that since “FOREST” is a dictionary phrase, any declare of monopoly requires “stringent proof” that the time period has acquired a secondary which means solely related to the plaintiff. Making use of the standpoint of an “common purchaser with imperfect recollection,” the Courtroom discovered that the marks weren’t deceptively comparable, noting that the general commerce costume and structure of the packaging have been dissimilar sufficient to stop widespread confusion.
Accordingly, the courtroom dismissed the enchantment and disposed of the pending purposes. The Courtroom concluded by clarifying that its observations are prima facie and won’t have an effect on the ultimate adjudication of the go well with throughout trial.
Learn order right here.
