![\"\"](\"https:\/\/iprmentlaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/ChatGPT-Image-Aug-23-2026-10_21_19-PM.png\" "\\"ChatGPT")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\nHollywood strikes first AI copyright truce with ByteDance<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has entered into its first agreement with an artificial intelligence company, following months of discussions with ByteDance concerning copyright safeguards for its AI video and image-generation tools, Seedance and Seedream.<\/p>\n The agreement follows the MPA\u2019s February cease-and-desist notice alleging that Seedance 2.0 had been trained on copyrighted material and was capable of generating unauthorised videos featuring protected characters and replicating scenes from films and television programmes. While the specific safeguards agreed between the parties have not been disclosed, both MPA and ByteDance have described the agreement as strengthening protections against unauthorised use of intellectual property.<\/p>\n The development marks an emerging trend towards negotiated copyright safeguards between rightsholders and AI developers, against the backdrop of continuing concerns over the use of copyrighted works for AI training and generation.<\/p>\n HUL moves Delhi HC against Beco\u2019s \u2018harmful chemicals\u2019 ad campaign targeting Surf Excel, Vim<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has moved the Delhi High Court against home-care brand Beco over an advertising campaign claiming that HUl\u2019s Surf Excel and Vim contain chemicals capable of causing skin irritation and allergic reactions.<\/p>\n The suit alleged commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court issued notice to Beco on HUL\u2019s application seeking an interim injunction against the campaign. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 21.<\/p>\n Beco had launched its \u2018#WarOnWhatsHidden\u2019 campaign last week through videos, social media posts, influencers and outdoor hoardings comparing its laundry and dishwashing liquids with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.<\/p>\n According to HUL\u2019s submissions, the advertisements claim that two chemicals, Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS), are present in Surf Excel, while LAS is present in Vim. The campaign says these ingredients can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. HUL has alleged that the advertisements portray its products as harmful and encourage consumers to switch to Beco products. It has also objected to the use of its registered taglines, including Vim\u2019s \u201c100 nimbuon ki shakti\u201d and Surf Excel\u2019s \u201cDaag Achhe Hain\u201d in the campaign.\u00a0<\/p>\n CCPA fines Amazon for Rs. 1 Lakh for misleading \u2018Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad\u2019 listing<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of \u20b91 lakh on Amazon for permitting misleading listings of sweets marketed as \u201cShri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad\u201d without authorisation from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.<\/p>\n The CCPA held that the expression carries a specific meaning for consumers, denoting sacred food offered at the Ram Temple, and that its commercial use for ordinary confectionery amounted to a misleading trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.<\/p>\n Importantly, the Authority rejected Amazon\u2019s contention that it merely acted as a marketplace intermediary. It held that by hosting, displaying and facilitating the sale of the listings, and earning marketplace fees from the transactions, Amazon was a party to the publication of the misleading advertisements under Section 21(4) of the Consumer Protection Act.<\/p>\n Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Holding Unlicensed IPRS Music In Hotels Is Copyright Infringement<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n On 20th<\/sup> August, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms amounts to \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d under the Copyright Act, 1957 and constitutes copyright infringement.<\/p>\n A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and stayed the High Court judgment while hearing Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited\u2019s challenge to the judgment dated 4 August 2026.<\/p>\n The High Court had restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating literary and musical works belonging to members of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to hotel guests through television sets installed in its rooms without obtaining a valid licence from IPRS. It had held that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms constitutes \u201ccommunication to the public\u201d within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The High Court had also set aside an order of the Darjeeling District Judge refusing IPRS interim relief.<\/p>\n Submissions were made on behalf of the Appellants that several judgments dealing with cable networks had treated the person subscribing to the cable service as the person to whom the communication is made. He argued that in the present case, \u201cthe hotel itself is the subscriber\u201d and the cable operator, in turn, communicates the television signals to the hotel. The Bench, however, sought to clarify the precise nature of the dispute and asked whether the hotel, as the subscriber and end consumer, would cease to be the ultimate consumer merely because its guests view the programmes in the hotel rooms.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court thereafter stayed the operation of the High Court judgment and issued notice.<\/p>\n Read order here<\/a>.<\/p>\n NCLT Mumbai Admits \u20b911.94 Cr Insolvency Plea Against Reliance Entertainment, Says Security Deposit Is Debt<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Mumbai NCLT has admitted Pen India Private Limited\u2019s Section 7 IBC application against Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. in relation to an alleged default of approximately \u20b911.94 crore.<\/p>\n The dispute arose from a Security Deposit Agreement under which Pen India had advanced \u20b920 crore to Reliance Entertainment. The Tribunal held that the amount advanced under the agreement could constitute \u201cfinancial debt\u201d under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and accordingly commenced insolvency proceedings against Reliance Entertainment Studios.<\/p>\n The order is significant for the treatment of security deposits and similar contractual advances within the statutory definition of financial debt.<\/p>\n Tamil Film Industry Faces Release Freeze Over Eight-Week OTT Window<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Tamil Film Producers Council and Tamil Nadu Active Producers Association have announced that no new Tamil films will be released in theatres from 1 September, following a dispute over the theatrical-to-OTT release window.<\/p>\n The decision follows announcements by the Tamil Nadu Theatre Owners Association and Distributors Association that they would screen new films only if producers provided a written commitment guaranteeing an eight-week theatrical window before OTT release. The producers\u2019 bodies have opposed the decision, stating that it was taken without consultation, and have also announced a halt to shooting and post-production activities.<\/p>\n The dispute highlights the continuing contractual and commercial tensions between producers, distributors, exhibitors and OTT platforms over the appropriate theatrical exclusivity period.<\/p>\n Demon Hunter Sues Netflix Over \u2018KPop Demon Hunters\u2019 Trademark<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Christian metal band Demon Hunter has sued Netflix and AEG Presents, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition arising from Netflix\u2019s animated film KPop Demon Hunters<\/em>.<\/p>\n The band claims registered rights in the mark \u201cDemon Hunter\u201d and alleges that the similarity between the marks has caused actual confusion. Among the examples cited in the lawsuit is a consumer who allegedly purchased concert tickets believing they were tickets to see the fictional group featured in the Netflix film. The band has also alleged that search results for its music and merchandise are being displaced by the popularity of the Netflix title.<\/p>\n The suit seeks injunctive relief and monetary remedies, placing questions of likelihood of confusion, actual confusion and the scope of protection afforded to entertainment-related trademarks squarely at issue.<\/p>\n Madras HC issues notice to three for \u2018defaming\u2019 Periyar in book<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Madras High Court has issued notice to two authors and a publisher in a suit filed by Dravidar Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani concerning alleged defamatory and false attribution of statements to the late social reformer Periyar.<\/p>\n The suit concerns the book Delimitation and States Reorganization for a Better Democracy in Bharat<\/em>, which allegedly attributes statements advocating violence against Brahmins to Periyar. The plaintiff has sought \u20b91 crore in damages and has also alleged infringement of moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, alongside defamation and intentional falsification of the historical record.<\/p>\n The matter raises an interesting intersection between copyright moral rights, historical attribution and defamation, and is next listed before the Madras High Court on 10 September.<\/p>\n Personality rights cannot be used to stifle freedom of expression, satire: Delhi High Court<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court has cautioned that the concept of personality rights cannot be deployed in an overbroad manner to prevent dissemination of information concerning wrongdoing or to extinguish forms of expression such as caricature, lampooning and parody, particularly where such expression does not amount to commercial exploitation of an individual\u2019s personality or publicity rights.<\/p>\n Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observation while dealing with a suit filed by educator and Physics Wallah founder Alakh Pandey alleging infringement of his personality and publicity rights by various online platforms.<\/p>\n The Court observed that the concept of personality rights, as claimed in the matter, \u201cmay be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication.\u201d<\/p>\n Referring to an earlier decision of a coordinate bench in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., the Court said that this court would want to examine and ensure that personality rights are not deployed to prevent dissemination of information in relation to wrongdoing; or to extinguish an entire genre of expression including caricature, lampooning or parady which may not amount to commercial exploitation of an individual\u2019s personality or publicity rights.<\/p>\n Proceeding on this caution, the Court said that, at the interim stage, it was persuaded to grant\u00a0protection\u00a0to Pandey only in respect of three sets of alleged violations. The same included content portraying him in a sexually vulgar manner, content which monetised his personality for gain without a licence or right to do so, and content involving impersonation of him. Accordingly, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against certain defendants in respect of the alleged infringing content.<\/p>\n The Court also directed several intermediary defendants to take down the offending URLs and disclose relevant particulars of persons behind the allegedly infringing accounts and content.<\/p>\n The Court directed that if Pandey discovers that any mirror websites of the identified defendant websites are infringing his copyright in their content, he would be at liberty to furnish to the concerned ISP or DNR, on affidavit, the particulars of such other\u00a0websites evidencing prima facie about infringement of his rights to such content.<\/p>\n Udan vs Udaan: Delhi court restrains pharmaceutical firm from using \u2018Udaan\u2019 mark<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Delhi District Court has permanently restrained a Hyderabad-based pharmaceutical company from using the trademark \u2018Udaan\u2019 or any similar mark, ruling that it was a clear violation of the rights of consumer goods major RSPL Health Private Limited, which had earlier registered its mark \u2018Udan.\u2019<\/p>\n In the judgement, it was held that the defendant, Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited, used the mark \u2018Udaan\u2019 in a manner that was \u201cidentical and deceptively similar\u201d to the plaintiff\u2019s (RSPL\u2019s) registered trademark \u2018Udan\u2019. The court noted that, according to RSPL Health, it had adopted the trademark or label Udan with respect to the goods and business of sanitary napkins in 2007 and Sainus Pharma\u2019s Udaan mark had infringed its proprietary rights in the said trademark.<\/p>\n In its order, the court said that the defendant did not appear before it, and thus the plaintiff\u2019s contentions remain unrebutted, unchallenged, and uncontroverted. Besides the permanent injunction, the court ordered that all seized counterfeit products and infringing materials, including packaging, dies, and blocks bearing the falsified mark, be delivered to RSPL Health for destruction.<\/p>\n Read judgement<\/a> here.<\/p>\n Govt holds high-level meeting on BARC ratings; landing page row takes centre stage<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The government is likely to clear the way for the resumption of television audience measurement by the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) in the coming days, following a high-level meeting on the prolonged ratings impasse, people familiar with the development said.<\/p>\n The meeting, attended by the Information and Broadcasting Secretary and senior government officials, discussed at length the outstanding issues surrounding BARC\u2019s compliance with the Television Rating Policy 2026 and the need to restore television ratings at the earliest, sources said.<\/p>\n The issue of landing-page viewership was discussed in depth during the meeting, with the government also examining the competing positions of news media networks and the continuing tug-of-war over how this viewership should be treated under the new ratings framework, according to people familiar with the discussions.<\/p>\n The landing-page issue has emerged as one of the most contentious aspects of the government\u2019s revised television ratings policy, with broadcasters taking sharply different positions depending on the impact of the methodology on their businesses. While the government is understood to be moving towards allowing BARC to resume measurement, it remains unclear whether the ratings body will be permitted to restart measurement this week and publish the first set of ratings on August 27.<\/p>\n MeitY consultation says blanket social media ban for children won\u2019t be effective<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n A consultation held by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) along with a social impact consultancy, has said that a blanket ban on social media for children will not be effective, people aware of the details have quoted.<\/p>\n MeitY, along with social impact consultancy Space2Grow, and civil society organisations met to discuss the issue of online child safety. The consultation was headed by MeitY secretary S Krishnan.<\/p>\n It was deliberated whether a new chapter in the Information Technology Act, an altogether separate law or guidelines by the country\u2019s apex child rights body National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) should be developed.<\/p>\n NCPCR is currently in the process of creating a social media code of conduct for social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat, to strengthen safeguards for children online.<\/p>\n The code is being prepared in consultation with MeitY, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), social media companies and civil society organisations.<\/p>\n Madras HC orders ISPs to block pirated copies of Awarapan 2, Batwara 1947<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Madras High Court has granted interim anti-piracy injunctions protecting\u00a0Awarapan 2<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Batwara 1947<\/em>. The court directed\u00a029 internet and telecom service providers\u00a0to block infringing websites. It also restrained\u00a0four cable operators\u00a0from unauthorised distribution of the films.<\/p>\n Justice K. Surender passed both orders on August 14, 2026. The injunctions will remain in force until September 11.<\/p>\n Vishesh Pictures\u00a0Pvt Ltd, the producer of\u00a0Awarapan 2<\/em>, filed one case.\u00a0Aamir Khan Productions\u00a0Pvt Ltd, the producer of\u00a0Batwara 1947<\/em>, filed the other case. Both companies approached the court over apprehended copyright infringement and sought substantially similar relief.<\/p>\n A separate part of each case covered four cable operators. They were Action Lane, JAK Communications, C32 Cable Net and Thamizhaga Cable TV Communication.<\/p>\n The producers sought to stop these operators and people acting through them from unauthorised copying, recording or camcording of the films. They also sought to prevent unauthorised reproduction, distribution, uploading, downloading, exhibition or transmission. The applications covered cable TV, direct-to-home services and the internet. They also covered CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, VCDs, storage devices, satellite systems and other media.<\/p>\n Read orders here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Dream11 pulls plug on paid contests, pivots to social gameplay amid RMG crackdown<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Dream11 is making a departure from its real-money gaming (RMG) business, with the platform telling users that it is shifting its focus to fan engagement, content and social gameplay, while continuing to offer free contests.<\/p>\n In a notification to users, Dream11 said, \u201cDream11 is now becoming a single destination for sports fans with a focus on fan engagement, content and social gameplay. Meanwhile, you can continue to enjoy free contests on Dream11. Your active subscription fees will be refunded within 72 hours. Stay tuned for more updates.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The announcement has triggered questions on social media about whether Dream11 is effectively winding down its paid gaming business or preparing for a new avatar.<\/p>\n The uncertainty comes as the legal challenge to India\u2019s online gaming regime moves closer to a crucial stage. The Supreme Court is heading towards final hearings on petitions challenging the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which introduced a nationwide prohibition on real-money online gaming. The proceedings could determine whether the ban covering both skill-based and chance-based money games will continue to remain in force.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hollywood strikes first AI copyright truce with ByteDance The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has entered into its first agreement with an artificial intelligence company, following months of discussions with ByteDance concerning copyright safeguards for its AI video and image-generation tools, Seedance and Seedream. The agreement follows the MPA\u2019s February cease-and-desist notice alleging that Seedance 2.0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7046588,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[13146,20067,107474,6039],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7046587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-aug","tag-highlights","tag-iprmentlaw","tag-weekly"],"yoast_head":"\n