18 Aug 2025
In this update:
Partner: Kirti Balasubramanian, Associates: Rimjhim Mishra, Paarth Samdani, and Yashaswini Hareesh
On 4 June 2025, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, released the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025. These draft rules propose to insert Rule 83A into the Copyright Rules, 2013, mandating that every copyright owner or licensor of literary works, musical works, and sound recordings establish an online system to collect licence fees. All licence fee payments must be processed exclusively through this system.
This appears to be part of a broader initiative by the DPIIT and the Indian Copyright Office to digitise copyright administration and enhance transparency in royalty flows. Once implemented, the amendment rules could significantly impact how copyright owners and licensees manage licensing operations, requiring quick adoption of compliant digital platforms. However, the proposal has raised concerns, particularly among independent creators and small licensors, who may face challenges in setting up and maintaining such systems. The DPIIT is expected to consider stakeholder feedback submitted during the public consultation period before finalising the amendment.
The Delhi High Court, in a progressive ruling, has held that businesses with demonstrable title to copyrights can seek superlative injunctions, a novel, anticipatory and broad form of relief designed to combat digital piracy in real time.1 Such a superlative injunction builds upon the ‘dynamic+ injunction’, by extending its scope to include mobile applications and other platforms, along with websites.
Recognising the evolving nature of digital threats, particularly the infringing mobile apps that resurface rapidly, the Court broadened the enforcement framework to enable rights holders to respond swiftly and comprehensively, without seeking fresh orders each time. Businesses may pre-emptively address piracy concerns across platforms, without filing fresh suits for each instance of infringement or misuse, reducing administrative burdens on themselves and the courts.
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the Trade Mark Registry’s (TMR) refusal to recognise TikTok as a well-known trademark. Dismissing TikTok’s appeal, the Court held that the TMR was entitled to consider all relevant factors, including the government’s ban of the application under the Information Technology Act, 2000, based on concerns related to sovereignty and public order.
Applicants seeking well-known status are advised to not only submit strong evidence of market recognition and consumer association, but also ensure that their brands are free from any regulatory, legal, or reputational issues that could adversely impact the Registry’s assessment.
The Delhi High Court recently declined interim relief in a trademark suit involving ROYAL CHALLENGERS BENGALURU and Uber’s ad tagline “ROYALLY CHALLENGED BENGALURU.” The Court held that playful, good-natured parody, particularly in the context of sports and entertainment, does not amount to disparagement or infringement if it avoids defamatory messaging or misleading claims. It clarified that humour and exaggeration in advertising are permissible, and disparagement requires a defaming or injurious message viewed in full context, not isolated fragments.
Trademark owners should assess risks realistically before challenging satire or humour-based ads.
The last quarter has seen significant developments in the intellectual property field, with courts working towards providing clarity on long-standing grey areas. Notably, the Delhi High Court has referred a key question to a larger bench on whether one registered trademark owner can sue another for infringement, an issue that could reshape how conflicts between co-existing registrations are litigated under Indian trademark law.
At the policy level, India is taking steps to modernise its copyright regime for emerging technologies. The DPIIT has formed a committee to examine how AI-generated content fits within the existing intellectual property framework, with recommendations likely to guide future reforms. Meanwhile, extensive submissions in the OpenAI v ANI litigation are likely to shed light on how Indian courts interpret fair use in the context of generative AI, particularly around the use of copyrighted material for training large language models. The next quarter may offer critical insights into how these issues are addressed, from a policy and litigation standpoint.
In parallel, the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2025 Special 301 Report has once again placed India on the priority watch list, citing systemic intellectual property enforcement concerns due to lack of adequate protection mechanisms. While this designation does not trigger automatic trade sanctions, it could prompt heightened diligence by foreign investors and licensors in IP-sensitive sectors.
The past quarter also witnessed India negotiating trade arrangements with several nations. India concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom on 6 May 2025 and formally signed the India-United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) on 24 July 2025. CETA includes a chapter on intellectual property which covers trademarks, geographical indications (GI), patents, designs, copyrights and related rights, trade secrets, etc., and aims to reduce trade barriers by ensuring effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. It should also benefit Indian exporters of intellectual property-focused goods such as pharmaceuticals, branded textiles, consumer products, foods with GIs, engineering goods, auto components, etc. Businesses across sectors should evaluate their intellectual property portfolios, licensing frameworks, and cross-border enforcement strategies to leverage the CETA framework.
[1] Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors, CS(COMM) 108/2025
If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.
If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.
Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.trilegal.com, you acknowledge that:
We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:
For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.
