IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS (twenty eighth September – 4th October, 2026)
Supreme Court docket refuses to intrude with Delhi HC ruling that Saregama owns sound recording copyright in Ilaiyaraaja’s ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’
On 1 October 2026, the Supreme Court docket refused to intrude with a Delhi Excessive Court docket ruling that music composer Ilaiyaraaja didn’t personal the copyright within the lyrics and sound recording of the tune En Iniya Pon Nilave from the Tamil movie Moodu Pani, and that the rights within the sound recording vested with Saregama.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ok. Vinod Chandran declined to entertain his problem to the Excessive Court docket’s order, which had dismissed his pleas towards earlier rulings upholding an injunction in favour of Saregama.
The dispute arose after Vels Movie Worldwide Ltd. recreated the tune for its movie Aghathiyaa, claiming to have obtained the required rights from Ilaiyaraaja. Saregama objected, asserting that it owned the copyright within the unique sound recording via an task from the movie’s producer.
The Delhi Excessive Court docket had held that Ilaiyaraaja retained copyright within the musical work, being the tune or composition, however not within the sound recording or the lyrics, and that he couldn’t assign to Vels rights he himself didn’t personal.
The Division Bench affirmed the Single Decide’s injunction restraining the usage of the recreated model in Aghathiyaa, holding that the copyright within the sound recordings of Moodu Pani, together with the tune, had vested with RCA, the unique rights holder, and was subsequently transferred to Saregama below an settlement dated 25 February 1980. It held that the recreation or adaptation of the sound recording amounted to infringement of Saregama’s copyright.
Ilaiyaraaja had argued that, because the composer and creator of the musical work, he remained the primary proprietor of copyright within the composition, and that Part 13(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957 protected his impartial copyright even after the composition was integrated right into a cinematograph movie. The producers of Aghathiyaa relied on the rights allegedly obtained from him and contended that he was entitled to license adaptation of the musical work below Part 14(a)(vi). The Single Decide rejected these contentions and the Division Bench upheld the choice. The Excessive Court docket dismissed his petition on Could 26, prompting the enchantment to the Supreme Court docket.
Madras HC refuses to dam Hindi remake of Drishyam 3 in remake rights dispute
The Madras Excessive Court docket has refused to restrain the discharge of the Ajay Devgn-starrer Hindi model of Drishyam 3, in a plea by Rajkumar Theatres Non-public Restricted claiming that it additionally held rights to remake the Malayalam sequel in Hindi. Rajkumar Theatres had approached the Court docket below Part 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, searching for to dam the worldwide launch of the movie throughout theatres, OTT platforms and satellite tv for pc tv.
Rajkumar Theatres claimed that, below agreements entered into in December 2013 with Ashirvad Cinemas and director Jeethu Joseph, Broad Angle Creations acquired Hindi and sure North Indian language remake rights, whereas Rajkumar Theatres funded the whole ₹50 crore consideration and the 2 agreed to share these rights equally. A June 2014 settlement allegedly recorded this association and made the 2 equal joint homeowners of the copyright within the Hindi variations. The respondents opposed the plea, counting on a 2014 task to Viacom18 and 2022 settlement agreements to argue that the Hindi sequel and spinoff rights had been assigned onward.
In his order of October 1, Justice Ok. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that the fabric positioned on file didn’t set up, on the interlocutory stage, “with adequate readability” that Rajkumar Theatres continued to carry an unique or joint copyright within the Hindi remake rights of Drishyam 3. The Court docket noticed {that a} worldwide block on the movie would have critical penalties for the respondents and for third events claiming below later preparations, and that such reduction required clear materials displaying a subsisting and enforceable proper below imminent risk.
The Court docket didn’t determine who lastly owns the Hindi remake rights, noting that the rival claims below the assorted agreements and subsequent transactions require detailed adjudication.
Learn order right here.
Bombay HC protects Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s persona rights; asks platforms to train due diligence
On October 1, 2026, the Bombay Excessive Court docket protected the persona rights of actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu and directed Google, Meta Platforms, different social media platforms and John Doe defendants to take down objectionable and derogatory content material that includes her. Her counsel pointed to web sites, pornographic portals, social media platforms, AI chatbots and personal entities utilizing her pictures, deepfakes and morphed photographs, movies and audio with out authorisation.
Justice Madhav Jamdar held that her persona and privateness rights below Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Structure, and her ethical rights as a performer below the Copyright Act, 1957, had been being violated by the morphed and deepfake pornographic content material, and {that a} “very robust prima facie case” for interim reduction was made out.
Orally, the Court docket reminded intermediaries, Google particularly, that Rule 3 of the Info Expertise (Middleman Pointers and Digital Media Ethics Code) Guidelines, 2021 casts an obligation of due diligence on them, observing that the matter issues residents’ basic rights. The matter can be heard sooner or later.
Case: Samantha Ruth Prabhu v. John Does, Ashok Kumar, Interim Utility (L) 29905 of 2026.
Delhi HC to listen to persona rights fits of Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan collectively
On 28 September 2026, the Delhi Excessive Court docket stated it will first hear three persona rights fits, filed by actors Vivek Oberoi and Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan, as a batch to look at the scope and contours of such rights, and use the rules rising from them to cope with the opposite pending fits. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noticed {that a} bigger variety of issues makes the logistics of listening to extra sophisticated. The remaining persona rights fits have been listed earlier than the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
The Court docket requested the amicus curiae, Advocates Gautam Bhatia and Rohan Alva, whether or not the problems throughout the fits can be frequent or whether or not plaintiffs would have to be handled in a different way. Bhatia responded that it is dependent upon the curiosity claimed, and that the place a plaintiff asserts a business curiosity based on property rights of their persona, recognisability would matter. Whereas listening to the go well with of Aaradhya Bachchan, the Court docket additionally orally requested whether or not utilizing a star’s {photograph} would violate persona rights the place the copyright within the {photograph} belongs to the one who clicked it.
In Oberoi’s go well with, the Court docket had granted advert interim reduction on 5 February 2026 towards unauthorised use of his identify, picture, likeness and voice, together with via AI-generated content material. In Kapoor’s go well with, the Court docket had declined in August to move a blanket injunction towards the almost 6,884 URLs she had cited, remarking that such broad reduction may very well be misused.
Delhi HC narrows takedown instructions to Google, Meta and X in Aniruddha Bapu persona rights case
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has modified its earlier instructions to Google, Meta and X for eradicating infringing content material referring to religious chief Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, who alleges infringement of his copyright, persona rights and publicity rights via deepfake and impersonated content material. Newly recognized content material should now be taken down on a compulsory foundation solely whether it is “similar” to the content material coated by the Court docket’s 24 February 2026 order. Content material that’s merely “related” must be eliminated inside 48 hours provided that it violates the platform’s personal insurance policies or pointers below the IT Act and its Guidelines.
Google and Meta had argued that the sooner path was overbroad, as intermediaries take pleasure in protected harbour below Part 79 of the Info Expertise Act, 2000 and, as interpreted in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and Myspace Inc. v. Tremendous Cassettes Industries Ltd., can’t take away content material with out a particular courtroom order except they act below their very own insurance policies. The plaintiff countered that approaching the Court docket for each new URL can be onerous and would defeat the aim of the injunction. Counting on its 27 July 2026 determination in House Field Workplace Inc. v. Streamzy.to, the Court docket break up the path in two. For similar content material, the plaintiff might ship particulars on affidavit, the platform should technically confirm whether or not the content material is similar and, in that case, implement the injunction as a professional tem measure, whereas the plaintiff information an utility to implead the URLs, posts or accounts.
The Court docket additionally directed Google, Meta and X to present the plaintiff the accessible Fundamental Subscriber Info behind the blocked or eliminated content material in password-protected information inside three weeks, with disclosure for extra similar URLs solely on particular instructions of the Court docket. The go well with will subsequent be heard by the Joint Registrar on 29 October 2026.
Learn order right here.
Kerala HC holds Part 100 of Patents Act lets Centre manufacture and promote patented medicines on non-commercial foundation
On 28 September 2026, the Kerala Excessive Court docket held that Part 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be invoked by the Central Authorities to make use of a patent to fabricate the drugs it covers and promote it to an individual, together with a needy affected person, on a non-commercial foundation. Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the decision in a suo motu petition on the exorbitant pricing of patented life-saving medicine.
The proceedings started in June 2022 with a petition by a breast most cancers affected person searching for entry to Ribociclib, a Novartis drug, via a obligatory licence below Part 92 or authorities use below Part 100. The Excessive Court docket continued the matter by itself movement. Novartis had argued that Part 100 can’t be invoked with out first adverting to obligatory licensing below Sections 84 and 92. The Court docket held that the ability below Part 100 isn’t confined to the Authorities’s personal inside use, and in addition extends to supplying the drugs to particular person sufferers on a non-commercial foundation.
Case: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines, WP(C) No. 18999 of 2022.
Delhi HC restrains Melody Healthcare from dealing in Ruxolitinib in Incyte patent go well with
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has briefly restrained Melody Healthcare Non-public Restricted from utilizing, manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, promoting, providing on the market or provide, or exporting pharmaceutical merchandise containing Ruxolitinib, the place such conduct quantities to infringement of Incyte Holdings Company’s patent.
Ruxolitinib is used to deal with myelofibrosis, a most cancers of the bone marrow.
Incyte argued that Melody’s itemizing of “Ruxolitinib Phosphate” in its business API product checklist, and its itemizing as a provider on the third-party platform Pharmacompass, amounted to an “supply on the market” below Part 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. It additionally relied on a personal investigation report dated 9 September 2026, which confirmed that Melody had obtained a producing licence for the API from the Meals and Drug Management Administration, Maharashtra, and meant to start business manufacture or stockpiling. The Court docket held that the stability of comfort favoured the injunction, because the patent remained legitimate and unexpired whereas Melody had but to launch its product commercially. The matter can be listed on 20 January 2027.
Learn order right here.
Delhi HC restrains Pune vendor from utilizing ‘Max Volvo’ and ‘Max Volwo’ marks in Volvo’s trademark go well with
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has restrained a Pune-based vendor from manufacturing or promoting engine oil, gear oil and different lubricants below the marks “Max Volvo” and “Max Volwo”. The Volvo corporations stated they discovered a list on IndiaMART in April 2026 promoting lubricants below “Max Volwo”. An investigator despatched by them purchased a carton of “Max Volwo” merchandise in money, and the vendor’s consultant later shared product photographs over WhatsApp and quoted a value for “Volwo Gold” branded items.
The Court docket discovered that “Max Volvo” reproduces the Volvo mark in its entirety, with the prefix “Max” isn’t adequate to tell apart it and, if something, is merely suggesting a premium Volvo variant. It held “Max Volwo” to be visually near-identical, since “V” and “W” are generally pronounced alike, making it a variant of “VOLVO” to a purchaser of common intelligence and imperfect recollection. Weighing this towards the vendor’s comparatively current use, the Court docket held that the stability of comfort favoured the plaintiffs. The vendor was then restrained from utilizing “Max Volvo”, “Max Volwo”, “Volwo Gold” or any deceptively related mark and from passing off its items as Volvo’s, and from utilizing these marks on any third-party itemizing or on-line platform.
Learn order right here.
Shopper Fee holds PVR accountable for 22-minute delay brought on by adverts and trailers
The District Shopper Disputes Redressal Fee-II, Hyderabad, has directed PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox Ltd. to pay compensation after the screening of ads and trailers delayed the beginning of the Telugu movie Kubera by about 22 minutes. The complainant, an advocate, had purchased tickets for a ten:35 PM present on 20 June 2025; the movie started solely at 10:52 PM, after the ads and trailers ended.
Counting on the Ministry of Info & Broadcasting’s Workplace Memorandum dated 30 November 2023, which restricts accepted public service movies to 2 minutes and requires them to be proven throughout the prescribed interval earlier than the movie or in the course of the interval, the Fee held that continued screening of economic ads past the scheduled begin amounted to deficiency in service and unfair commerce follow. It rejected PVR’s plea that screening ads and trailers shaped a part of its proper to hold on enterprise below Article 19(1)(g) of the Structure.
The Fee directed PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox, collectively and severally, to pay ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 as litigation prices, to discontinue such practices, and to deposit ₹50,000 as punitive damages with the District Shopper Welfare Fund. The quantities are payable inside 45 days, failing which curiosity at 9% each year will accrue.
Learn order right here.
ASCI points pointers on labelling AI-generated content material in promoting
The Promoting Requirements Council of India (ASCI) has launched its Pointers for Accountable Labelling of Synthetically Generated Content material in Promoting on 29 September 2026. The rules will come into impact three months from the date of publication, and comply with stakeholder session on a draft launched in Could 2026.
Below the ultimate framework, labelling is necessary the place synthetically generated content material materially influences client choices and non-disclosure might mislead customers. Sure makes use of stay prohibited even with an AI label, whereas routine edits that don’t materially have an effect on knowledgeable client alternative want no label. Disclosures might take types reminiscent of “Audio/Video created utilizing AI” or “Audio/Video enhanced utilizing AI” and should comply with ASCI’s disclaimer pointers. The sooner excessive, medium and low threat tiers have been changed with three classes, specifically prohibited content material, necessary labelling and no labelling required, and the ultimate model provides an evaluation framework and a standalone accessibility class.
ASCI has clarified that each one such ads stay topic to the ASCI Code in its entirety, and that accountability for an trustworthy and clear finish communication stays with the advertiser, since an AI label alone might not make an in any other case deceptive commercial acceptable.
