(This post has been co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Aditi Agrawal and Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan)
Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on taking stock of ANI vs OpenAI copyright litigation (Part I and II), and ‘Machine Unlearning’ and the ANI vs OpenAI case. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Highlights of the Week
Taking Stock of ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation- Part I
With interventions from book and digital publishers in the ANI vs OpenAI copyright litigation, the Delhi HC will begin hearing arguments in the ANI-OpenAI Copyright dispute from February 21. The first of its kind litigation against LLMs in India, several key legal issues are expected to be addressed in the case. Where do the copyright concerns of ANI lie within the AI supply chain? What is the scope of protection in the copyrighted content that ANI is asserting against OpenAI? Does training a GenAI model on copyrighted content constitute infringement? Read Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan’s first part of his two part post where he analyses the issues framed by the Delhi HC in ANI vs OpenAI.
Taking Stock of ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation- Part II
How exactly does a LLM learn from training data? Is training of GenAI models fair use? Will Section 52(1)((iii) come in for OpenAI’s rescue? Will OpenAI’s question on jurisdiction play spoilsport for ANI? Read the second part of Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan’s post on the ANI vs OpenAI Copyright Litigation, analysing the issues framed by the Delhi HC.
ANI v. Open AI: Time to Talk About ‘Machine Unlearning’
Is ANI’s interim injunction, if granted, technically feasible? Can ‘Machine Unlearning’ ensure compliance with copyright laws? Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, in continuation of his posts on ANI vs. OpenAI, discusses the implications and technicalities of the interim injunction sought by ANI against OpenAI.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi Police Authorized to Issue Takedown Orders for Unlawful Content
On 26th December 2024, the Delhi Government issued a gazette notification, designating Delhi Police as the nodal agency for regulating digital content hosted or published on intermediary platforms in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The notification authorizing the Delhi Police to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act raises significant concerns regarding procedural fairness and constitutional compliance. Aditi Agrawal discusses the concerns arising from the notification in this tidbit!
Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Judge, MHC (2000-2010) and Chairperson, IPAB (2011-2013) was recently interviewed by SpicyIP Doctoral Fellow Malobika Sen as part of her doctoral research. Justice Sridevan spoke on the role of expert evidence in IP litigation, the methodology of expert evidence, the challenges of dealing with expert witnesses and more!
In a recent trademark dispute between Evergreen Sweet House v. JV Evergreen Sweets and Treats, the DHC on December 23 restrained the defendants from using “JV Evergreen Sweets & Treats” mark or any similar mark that is identical to the mark “Evergreen”. But was the judgment as detailed as it should have been? Discussing the order in this tidbit, Aditi Agrawal writes on the findings that could have benefitted from a more detailed analysis by the Court.
The Centre for Intellectual Property Research and Advocacy [CIPRA] of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad is organizing its first blog writing competition in collaboration with us on the theme of Literature, Journalism and IP. The top two entries will be awarded with some cash prizes and also with a chance to be published on the blog! Send your submissions by February 19 and check out the above linked post for the guidelines!
Case Summaries
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the mark “ALMOND DROPS,” alleging trademark/trade dress infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. They sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to incorporate subsequent events, including three new trademark registrations, updated sales turnover, and an interim order from related proceedings. Justice Amit Bansal allowed the amendments, observing they neither change the nature and character of the suit nor cause prejudice to defendants while avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The Court directed plaintiffs to file the amended plaint within two weeks, with defendants to file an amended written statement within thirty days thereafter. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on March 19, 2025 for completion of pleadings.
Itc Limited vs Raj Kumar Mittal & Ors. on 22 January, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The case involved a contempt petition by ITC against the Defendant’s disobedience of the interim injunction order. The Court had directed execution of a local commission and the defendants obstructed the proceedings by locking the premises and intimidating the officials. The Delhi HC had earlier issued an interim injunction and appointed local commissioners to inspect the defendant’s premises. After examining the evidence and various submissions, Justice Amit Bansal found both respondents guilty of contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court imposed fines of ₹5,00,000 and ₹3,00,000 on respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, respectively, to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee/Authority.
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd vs Mitra Trading And Ors on 27 January, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
This case involves an application for transposition of parties in a trademark dispute. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (the original plaintiff) filed a suit to protect four registered “Kirloskar” trademarks against alleged infringers. Kirloskar Proprietary Limited (originally defendant no. 5) applied to be transposed from defendant to plaintiff status. The original plaintiff claimed to have filed the suit as a registered user of the trademarks, stating they were compelled to take action because defendant no. 5 (the registered proprietor) had not taken steps to protect the marks. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur allowed the transposition, reasoning that both parties sought to protect the same marks and had common interests in the suit. The Court noted that Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd, as the registered proprietor, had superior ownership rights compared to the plaintiff’s status as a registered user. The transposition was deemed not to change the fundamental nature of the suit or prejudice any party’s rights. It thus allowed the application and ordered the transposition.
Birendra Prasad Sah vs Debendra Jalewal on 24 January, 2025 (Gauhati High Court)
A petition under Article 227 was filed before the Guwahati High Court against the orders of the trial court allowing search and seizure at the petitioner’s premises and restraining him from using the impugned “Krishan” mark. The petitioner challenged these orders arguing procedural violations, lack of notice, and non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court observed that the lower court had failed to adhere to procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of hearing the petitioner and verifying the invalidity of the respondent’s trademark registration before granting the injunction. While the High Court set aside the ex parte orders, it dismissed the revision petition on the grounds of maintainability, stating that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. The matter was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence to the appropriate appellate remedies.
Ayachak Ashrama & Ors vs Youtube India & Ors. on 27 January, 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
In a copyright infringement suit involving more than 100 plus defendants,it was alleged that the copyright of the works of Samabeta Upasana, Hari Om Kirtan, and Swarupananda Sangeet was being infringed upon. The defendants were accused of illegally uploading copyrighted works online on social media and other online private groups. The Court held that the petitioner established the three-step test for granting an interim injunction and issued an interim injunction against the defendants.
The Madras High Court in the Nayanthara Copyright Saga concluded that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. This order was issued when Los Gatos (a unit of Netflix) applied to reject the plaint, citing lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court found no merit in this application and declared it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The Delhi High Court had to decide who owned the copyright in the literary and musical work of the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave‟, composed by the famous Tamil Composer Illayaraja. Defendant 1 had produced a movie titled “Aghathiyaa”, and had created an adoption of the copyrighted song “En Iniya Pon Nilave‟. An agreement was signed between the composer and the plaintiff in 1980, vesting all copyright over the song to Saregama. The Court ruled that since the agreement in question was signed in 1980, the Copyright Amendments made in 2012 did not apply to the case in question. The Court concluded that the plaintiff owned the copyright over the song and clarified that the composer did not own the copyright over the literary work in the song, rather would only own the copyright over the musical work, which was assigned to the plaintiff anyway. The Court did not grant an interim injunction; instead, it allowed Defendant 1 to use the song subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 30 Lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court within two days.
The plaintiff asserted infringement against Macleods for using the mark “BELATIN” and alleged that the mark was deceptively similar to their registered mark “BILTEN”. The competing products are pharmaceutical products made with the same API, BILASTINE, and the trademark was derived from that API. The defendant argued that it conceived of and adopted the trademark BELATIN in May 2019 and applied for registration in July, 2019 “proposed to be used” basis. The defendant also argued that is entitled to protection as an honest and concurrent user. The plaintiff asserted that it placed orders to manufacture products bearing the trademark BILTEN in April 2019. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was the prior user and stated that honest and concurrent use is not a defence available in an infringement suit, deciding the case in favour of the plaintiffs.