In a guest post, Arun Mohan shared his thoughts on the recent Ilayaraja judgment passed by the Madras High Court. He notes that the judgment consolidates producers’ rights over sound recordings that incorporate musical works that are created prior to and post the 2012 amendments. The judgment does, however, pay heed to the composers’ moral rights to paternity and integrity. Pankhuri wrote a post on the developments from the order passed by the Delhi HC in the patent working PIL…

Divij broke the news about a recent order delivered by the Delhi HC in Raj Rewal v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court ruled that an architect, in the capacity of a legal ‘author’ of a building, does not have the right to object to its modification or destruction by the owner of such building. The Court’s decision contradicts the one delivered in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, where the Delhi HC had taken an opposite stance on the…

I wrote a post on the Delhi HC’s recent order and circular that seek to prevent the practice of ‘defendant masking’. The order and circular prescribe stricter checks by the registry and an undertaking from the plaintiff suggesting that the defendant arraigned as Defendant Number 1 is the main contesting defendant. Other Developments Indian Judgments International Cycle Gears v. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Others – Calcutta High Court [May 10, 2019] The Appellant filed an appeal against the…

Divij broke the news about a recent order delivered by the Bombay HC in the Tips Industries v. Wynk Music matter, wherein the Court decided upon the applicability of the statutory licensing scheme under Section 31D of the Copyright Act to online streaming services. The Court, in its order, held that internet broadcasting is not covered under Section 31D. In his post, Divij also delves into the question of whether there is a need to introduce internet streaming services into Indian copyright law. I…

Topical Highlight Prarthana wrote a post on the imposition of a staggering Rs. 5 crore in costs in Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation v Kishor D Jain. The case concerned the sale of low-quality pipes to a customer intending to use the same in oil plants. This constituted trademark infringement because the pipes were improperly branded with Nippon Steel’s labels. Justice Kathawalla thought it necessary to impose such extraordinary damages because of the use of low-grade material in an…