COPYRIGHT
US SC REJECTS AI AUTHORSHIP CLAIMS
Dr. Stephen Thaler, a publicly known computer scientist, took up a legal challenge against the USPTO before the U.S. courts, and ultimately before the Supreme Court of the United States, to seek copyright protection for his artwork “A Recent Entrance to paradise” created entirely by his AI system. Thaler argued that AI-generated works should be eligible for copyright and that denying such protection could discourage innovation in today’s age of AI-driven creativity. He had deliberately listed his AI system as the sole author, claiming that the work had no human involvement. The Copyright Office, however, rejected his application maintaining that copyright law requires human authorship and emphasized that creative ownership must originate from a human being rather than a machine.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and allowed the earlier rulings to stand without further review. Consequently, the legal position remains that works created entirely by AI, without meaningful human involvement are not eligible for copyright protection. This decision reinforces a clear principle that copyright law protects human creativity, and simply generating content through AI prompts is not enough to claim ownership.
COPYRIGHT
NO EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT OVER STREET PLAYS
Arvind Gaur (Plaintiff) founder of Asmita theatre Group, filed a copyright suit before the District Court of Delhi against his former student Shilpi Marwaha and her theatre group Sukhmanch Theatre (Defendants) alleging that they had copied and performed several of his street plays without authorization. He claimed that the scripts and performances were his original creations which were developed during their association with his theatre group, and since the Defendants had previously worked with him, they copied the plays and were presenting them independently, thereby infringing his copyrights. In response, the Defendants argued that the plays were not solely created by the Plaintiff but were a result of collective effort. They also maintained that their performances were independently developed and used for spreading social awareness and not for commercial gains. The court consequently dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff had failed to clearly establish exclusive ownership over the works and could not sufficiently prove that the Defendants had copied his material. The Court further observed that street plays are often created through collaboration and shared ideas, making it difficult to assign a sole authorship without clear evidence.
1.Arvind Gaur v. Shilpi Marwaha & Anr., Case No. CS (COMM) 292/ 2020
PATENT
RELIEF GRANTED IN HARVARD PATENT DISPUTE
The President and Fellows of Harvard College (Appellant) filed an appeal before the Delhi HC against the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Respondent) challenging the refusal of its patent application for stem cell-derived pancreatic cells intended for diabetes treatment. The Appellant argued that the cells did not occur naturally but were specially engineered in a laboratory through human intervention, therefore making them novel and eligible for patent protection. It also contended that the Patent Office had wrongly rejected its application by not considering its amended claims and treating the invention as a natural biological material. On the other hand, the Respondents maintained that the claimed cells were essentially derived from natural sources and fell within the scope of Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, which excludes parts of humans, animals, or plants from patentability, even if processed in a lab.
The Court therefore sided with the Appellant on procedural grounds and set aside the refusal order, finding that the Patent Office had made a serious error by not examining the amended claims independently. It accordingly sent the order back to Patent Office for re-consideration and clarified that when an applicant modifies its claims in a meaningful way, the authority must reassess the application afresh rather than relying on earlier conclusions.
1.President And Fellows Of Harvard College v. Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademarks, Case No. C.A. (COMM. IPD-PAT) 493/2022
TRADEMARK
“SOCIAL HOUSE” MARK CANCELLED
Impressario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant), the owner of the well-known “SOCIAL” restaurant chain, filed a suit before Delhi HC against one Vardhaman Choksi (Respondent) seeking to remove his registered mark “SOCIAL HOUSE,” alleging non-use of the mark, trademark squatting, and an attempt to ride on Plaintiff’s established goodwill. The Appellant contended that the name “SOCIAL” has acquired distinctiveness in the hospitality sector through extensive use and reputation, and that the Respondent had never actually used the mark “SOCIAL HOUSE” for its restaurant services as claimed in the registration. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the word “SOCIAL” is a common term and asserted its prior adoption and use over the mark.
The Court ruled in the Appellant’s favour and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the mark “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the register. It held that the term “SOCIAL” is not a common term in the hospitality industry, but a distinctive and suggestive mark associated with the Plaintiff’s business.
1.Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhaman Choksi & Ors., Case No. C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & I.A. 4139/2024
TRADEMARK
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED IN “BHARATBENZ” CASE
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) approached the Delhi HC against Getmohit Cab Private Limited, Shri Bheru Nath Motor Body, and other unknown parties (Defendants), alleging misuse of its well-known “BHARATBENZ” trademark. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants were using marks identical to the Plaintiff without its authorisation, and creating a false impression that such vehicles were associated with the Plaintiff. It argued that such conduct not only misled customers but also harmed its reputation and goodwill, since these buses were not built to the same quality and standards as that of the Plaintiff.
The court found a prima facie case and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendants from using the “BHARATBENZ” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to buses and allied services. It further restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, advertising or deploying such infringing buses.
1.Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v. Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors. Case No. CS(COMM) 379/2026
TRADEMARK
PARLE AGRO SLAMMED PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
In 2021, PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited (Plaintiff) filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against Parle Agro Private Limited (Defendant) over unauthorized use of the tagline “For The Bold” for its ‘B Fizz’ beverage, alleging infringement of its trademark rights. The Plaintiff also pointed out that while the Court had earlier allowed the Defendant to continue limited use of the tagline, this permission was conditional upon regularly submitting certified sales figures to maintain transparency. The Plaintiff argued that Defendant failed to comply with these directions over a considerable period. In response, the Defendant contended that such disclosures were not necessary until the trial proceedings.
The Court took a strict note of this non-compliance and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the Defendant, holding that failure to follow court directions, especially over a prolonged period, even if not deliberate, amounted to a serious contempt. It emphasised that parties cannot choose which court orders to follow and must comply with them fully and on time. The Court directed the Defendant to deposit the penalty with an unconditional apology, reinforcing the importance of respecting judicial orders during ongoing litigation.
