Copyright Act, 1957

Star India Private Limited challenged the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the accompanying Tariff Order, alleging that TRAI had overstepped its jurisdiction by regulating the content, pricing and packaging of TV channels, which they argued …

The plaintiff, Paragon Rubber Industries, filed a suit in the District Court of Kottayam seeking relief under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendants challenged the suit's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. The trial cou…

The Madras High Court, in an interim order, altered Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 by allowing broadcasters to furnish notice details within fifteen days after a broadcast and treating the 24‑hour exception as a routine procedure. Saregama India Ltd and other appellants challenged this order, arguing that the …

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) entered into a development agreement with Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No.3), who later terminated the agreement and sought certified copies of the development plans, layouts and related documents filed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Inform…

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of open courts, the rights…

The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (respondent) had been using the mark ‘NANDINI’ for milk and milk products since 1985, while the restaurant chain M/s. Nandhini Deluxe (appellant) began using the mark ‘NANDHINI’ for its restaurants in 1989 and later applied for registration of the mark for various foo…

The plaintiffs, Zee Telefilms, had assigned satellite broadcasting rights of sixteen Hindi films to certain defendants for nine years on 23‑December‑1994. In 2003 they issued a public notice about the films, after which the first defendant claimed to have acquired the same rights via a 1997 assignment. Zee filed a suit…

The Union of India challenged the re‑telecast of live cricket feeds, shared by Star India and ESPN with Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, by cable operators under Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The pet…

The case concerned suits alleging infringement of copyrights in lyrics and musical works where the plaintiffs (copyright societies) sought interim injunctions against the defendants for public performance of sound recordings without proper licences. The Delhi High Court had disposed of the interim applications in favou…

M/S Knit Pro International filed a criminal application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR against respondent No.2 for alleged violations of Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR was registered, but the respondent obtained a writ order from the Delhi High Court…

Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta filed a criminal complaint under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 alleging that the film "Desi Boyz" infringed the copyright in the title of his story synopsis "Desi Boys". The accused filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint; the Bombay High Court dismissed …

The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w…

The appellant, Sharad Babu Digumarti, was charged under IPC Sections 292 and 294 and IT Act Section 67 for alleged possession of obscene material in electronic form. He was discharged of the IT Act charge but the trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 292, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined …

Asian Paints Ltd., a paint manufacturer, discovered that counterfeit paints bearing its brand were being sold by Ram Babu. The company, through a power of attorney, engaged an IPR consultancy to investigate and the investigation led to an FIR under the IPC and Copyright Act. The trial court convicted Ram Babu, but the …

Tarun Tyagi was charged with stealing the source code of the 'Quick Recovery' software and selling it through his own company. The CBI seized three hard disks (Q‑2, Q‑9, Q‑20) containing the alleged source code. Tyagi sought copies of these disks under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prepare his defenc…

The Supreme Court examined whether the Copyright Board, under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, could grant an interim compulsory licence while a complaint was pending. The Board had earlier held it lacked such power, but the Delhi High Court reversed that view and directed the Board to grant an interim lice…

The appellant, a Karnataka‑based incense‑stick manufacturer, adopted the mark "Eenadu" for its products and sold them in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent, a prominent Telugu newspaper and media group, claimed that the mark had acquired extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the state and that the appellant’s use amount…

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) conducted examinations for chartered accountants and was asked by Shaunak H. Satya, a failed candidate, to disclose the instructions, model answers and related materials given to examiners and moderators under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The issues we…

The Supreme Court considered appeals concerning whether payments made by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for computer software, under End User Licence Agreements (EULAs) and distribution agreements, constitute 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements …

The Supreme Court examined whether sections 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allow a plaintiff to sue in a district court where it resides or carries on business even when the cause of action has also arisen at its principal place of business. The Court held that these provisions creat…