An Outlook on Famous Trademark Infringement Cases in India

Famous trademark infringement cases in india - Intellect Vidhya

The implementation of the TRIPS agreement resulted in significant changes in how governments enforced intellectual property rights. As a result, business owners and entrepreneurs began to place a premium on their brand names and trademarks. The increase in the number of applications for trademark registration coincided with an increase in the number of infringement cases, in which tiny enterprises attempted to replicate and profit off the goodwill and repute of previously existing trademarks.

This eventually led to higher courts taking infringement cases and setting precedent for future cases to follow. This article also provides a summary of famous trademark infringement cases in India that have served as a model for similar lawsuits.

Table of Contents

Famous Trademark Infringement Cases in India

Here are some examples of trademark infringement cases from India that illustrate the nuances of the relevant legislation.

1. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr: One of the earliest cases of Cybersquatting in India

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr - Trademark infringement case India - Intellect Vidhya

This case is one of the most famous trademark infringement cases in India. In addition to trademark infringement, it is often asked that the case of Yahoo! Inc. V. Akash Arora belongs to which dispute outside trademark infringement? The correct response is ‘Cybersquatting’; this is one of the earliest known instances of cybersquatting.

Factual Background

Yahoo INC., the plaintiff, was the owner of the trademark “Yahoo” and the domain name “yahoo.com,” both of which were widely recognized brands in the minds of consumers around the world providing internet services. In addition Yahoo was a registered company since 1995, having registered trademarks in various countries except India.

Akash Arora, the defendant in the particular case simultaneously started using the domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ for the similar kind of services India. Yahoo Inc. sought an interim injunction to prevent from using the domain name ‘yahooindia.com’ or any name similar to its own.

Decision of the Court

The court determined that Akash Arora was liable for infringing the “Yahoo” trademark and restricted him on the basis that he was using a deceptively similar domain name and delivering services similar to those of Yahoo Inc., which constituted cybersquatting. This ruling was based on the premise that a company’s goodwill resides primarily in its name and trademark, and especially so in the instance of Yahoo Inc. Yahoo Inc. was awarded the passing-off remedy.

2. Amazon v. Happy Belly Bakes: Trademark Rights of small business owners against the Giant ones

Amazon v. Happy Belly Bakes - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

Shisham Hinduja founded Happy Belly Bakes in 2008, a women-owned business that sells baked items like cakes, brownies, cookies etc. It has owned the trademark for the name ‘Happy Belly’ since 2016, (before it was known as Regalar and it switched to Happy Belly Bakes in 2010).

Happy Belly Bakes used the trademark since its inception in 2008. It sued Amazon for selling bakery items, snacks, and dairy under the same brand name. 

In 2016, the bakery began receiving calls asking if their products were available on Amazon. However, the website of the e-commerce giant revealed that Happy Belly was Amazon’s own brand for selling bakery products. Tootsie LLC filed the trademark application on behalf of the e-commerce firm, arguing that while Happy Belly Bakes only operated in Bengaluru, Amazon sold the products worldwide.

Decision of the Court 

The court held that Amazon had infringed the trademark of Happy Belly Bakes. The court gave verdict in favour of Happy Belly Bakes against Amazon. It took four years for Happy Belly to get justice but at the end they were able to protect their trademark against the tech giant – Amazon. While the small businesses struggle to get justice against giant enterprises, this case of Happy Belly Bakes showed that the infringement laws are for all and are common.

3. The Coca-Cola company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd: Assignment of Trademarks

The Coca-Cola company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

Coca-Cola v. Bisleri case study is amongst the major trademark infringement cases in India. The plaintiff is the largest soft drink brand in the world, with a presence in 200 countries, whereas the defendant is a very well-known Indian brand recognized for its bottled water. In September 1993, the defendant sold the plaintiff the rights to the soft drink MAAZA. In March 2008, the plaintiff submitted a trademark application for the name “MAAZA” in Turkey. In September 2008, the defendant sent the plaintiff a legal notice revoking the licensing agreement and announcing its desire to begin using the trademark in India. Both directly and indirectly, the defendant was involved in the manufacture, sale, and exportation of MAAZA-branded items.

Decision of the Court

A temporary injunction was issued against the defendant. The Honorable Court decided that the plaintiff had both a prima facie case and a favorable balance of conveniences. The rejection of the trademark was deemed invalid, and the plaintiff was given complete trademark rights for the soft drink MAAZA. It was determined that the defendants were responsible for trademark infringement.

4. Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan: Dilution of Well-known trade marks

Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

In this case, an undergarments shop used the term ‘Benz’ in the title of the brand, as well as a logo that looked suspiciously similar to the logo created and used by the car company. The famous three-star ring of Mercedes Benz which is very popular across the globe was used by the defendant for selling undergarments. The defendant was using a three-pointed human being in a ring as his logo. The plaintiff got to know this and filed the case against the defendant.

Decision of the Court

It was held by the court that this is a clear infringement of the trademark as the three-star ring of the Mercedes is a well-known mark and is widely known across the world for the cars. Therefore, the defendant was refrained from using this mark by an injunction. The court in this case had acknowledged the trademark’s international reputation, remarking that almost no one would ever fail to associate the word “Benz” with the car. As a result, no one can claim that he was unaware of the use of the mark “Benz” which is popularly known to have in relation to automobiles.

5. Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.: Rule of Dominant Feature of a Trademark

Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. - Intellect Vidhya Solutions

In this specific case, the meaning and fundamental nature of a trademark were reaffirmed; namely, that a trademark is a one-of-a-kind identifier and distinguishing feature for both the customer and the company in question.

Factual Background

Starbucks registered their word mark ‘STARBUCKS’ and corresponding logo as a trademark in India in 2001. The Defendants established their business in 2015 under the name ‘Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.’ Sardarbuksh’s logo was a turban commander’s face with wavy lines on the sides surrounded by a circular black band. Through a letter of demand, the Plaintiff requested that the Defendants change the logo in 2017. In response, the Defendant simply changed the colour scheme to black and yellow and resumed operations. The Defendant began operations under the same name in May 2018. The Defendant and Plaintiff provide comparable goods and services. The plaintiff filed a suit against Sardarbuksh in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as a result of the preceding events. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for trademark infringement by using a deceptively similar mark.

Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court relied on the National Sewing Thread Co. decision. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros Ltd, which stated that in order to determine whether a trademark was deceptively similar, the court had to put itself in the shoes of the customers.

The Delhi High Court concluded, using the aforementioned case that a man of ordinary intelligence might be confused, and thus it is deceptively similar.

6. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) V. Neeraj Food products: Attempt to free ride on the goodwill of well-known trademarks using deceptively similar marks

Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) V. Neeraj Food products - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Cadbury India Limited, filed a lawsuit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant’s deceptively identical mark and goods/products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sold chocolate with the trademark ‘JAMES BOND’ that was deceptively similar to their trademark ‘Cadbury GEMS’ with similar packaging and was inspired by Cadbury’s famous fictional character & registered copyright ‘GEMS BOND’ from the plaintiff’s advertising campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant is trying to create confusion in the mind of consumer so as to free ride on the goodwill of the former.

Decision of the Court 

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision in the favour of the plaintiff. In addition to the relief of a permanent and mandatory injunction granted to the Plaintiff, the court awarded the Plaintiff damages in the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

7. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals: Trademark should be read in its entirety

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals - Intellect Vidhya

 Factual Background

The appellant (Cadila Healthcare) and the defendant (Cadila Pharmaceuticals) were two pharmaceutical companies that introduced medicine for the treatment of cerebral malaria. The appellant launched the medicine in style and name of ‘Falcitab’ and the respondent launched it in the name ‘Falcigo’. Cadila Healthcare filed the lawsuit after discovering that Cadila Pharmaceutical is using the mark “FALCITAB” which is similar to their mark “FALCIGO”; and that Cadila Pharmaceutical registered the mark for a similar medicine. In this lawsuit, Cadila Healthcare sought an injunction prohibiting Cadila Pharmaceutical from using a mark that is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion amongst the consumers.

Decision of the Court

The Hon. Supreme Court held that even though the drug is to be prescribed by the medical practitioners and sold directly to hospitals, the possibility of the confusion between the two cannot be disregarded.

The Supreme Court also held that there are certain principles that need to be followed in the case of deciding the mark as a deceptively similar. They are as follows:

  • To check the nature of the marks which includes word marks composite marks etc.
  • To check ideological and phonetic similarity
  • To check the similarity of nature, performance, and character of applicants
  • To identify the class of consumers etc.

8. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S Prius Auto Industries Ltd. – Trans-border reputation of Trademarks 

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Toyota alleged that the defendants, Prius Car Industries, a supplier of auto parts and accessories, infringed upon its registered ‘Toyota,’ ‘Toyota Innova,’ ‘Toyota Device,’ and ‘Prius’ Trade Marks. The plaintiff petitioned the Trade Mark Registry for cancellation of the defendants’ registered mark, and filed suit on the grounds that the defendant was using their “well-known mark” without their permission, resulting in an unfair benefit to the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill. On the other hand, The Plaintiff did not register the “Prius” trademark in India, and its Prius automobile was not introduced in India until 2009, much after the Defendant registered the “PRIUS” trademark in India in 2002.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court determined that “likelihood of confusion” and the differentiating powers of a man of average intelligence would be a more appropriate standard for proving a passing-off activity, which can only be proven by evidence, which the Appellants failed to offer. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki-trademark petition was dismissed after the Supreme Court ruled that trademark rights are territorial and not universal and that actual proof is required to establish a company’s reputation and goodwill in a territory.

9. Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. – no one can claim an exclusive right or monopoly over an entire class of goods

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The respondents, Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers, had been using the mark for milk and related products registered under class 29 since 1985. Appellant Nandhini Deluxe is a restaurant chain in Karnataka that used the mark in 1989. The Appellant has applied for registration of the said mark in class 29 for meat, fish, poultry, meat extracts, preserves, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, eggs, milk and milk products, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, and so on. The registrar approved the registration of the mark ‘Nandhini’ as distinct from the existing mark. The IPAB and the High Court of Karnataka both found the marks ‘Nandini’ and ‘Nandhini’ to be deceptively similar, with the only difference being the letter ‘H’ between the two marks.

Decision of Court

The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which determined that the marks are not deceptively similar after a thorough examination of both. The court noted that there is only a phonetic similarity between the two marks Nandini/Nandhini. Aside from that, the logos for both marks are distinct. The phrase ‘Deluxe’ was used by the restaurant and is followed by the words ‘the real spice of life,’ whereas the mark Nandini has no suffixes or prefixes. The Supreme Court concluded that no one can claim an exclusive right or monopoly over an entire class of goods, especially when the trademark is not used with respect to all of the goods in that class. Finally, the appellant ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ was granted permission to use the mark after removing milk and milk products from their class description.

10. Amritdhara Pharmacy V. Satya Deo Gupta: Monopoly over the generic terms can’t be allowed & the concept of honest concurrent use.

Amritdhara Pharmacy V. Satya Deo Gupta - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The respondent, Satya Deo Gupta, submitted an application to register the name “Lakshmandhara”, which has been in the business of selling and preparing medicinal items since 1923. “Amritdhara” the appellant company Amritdhara Pharmacy, objected the registration of the term Lakshamandhara on the grounds that it is likely to mislead and confuse clients due to the appellant’s trademark Amritdhara, which has been in the same line of business since 1901. In response, the defendant filed a counter-affidavit claiming concurrent usage on the basis that they had been using the mark since 1923.

Decision of the Courts

The Registrar of Trademarks determined that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are sufficiently similar to cause confusion. The Allahabad High Court on appeal, granted the respondent’s appeal, allowing registration of the mark “Lakshmandhara” while denying the appellant’s appeal and stating that the marks are dissimilar. The court also ruled that the words “Amrit” and “Dhara” cannot be monopolized because they are part of the common language. The High Court discovered insufficient grounds to deny the Lakshmandhara trademark registration. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court on appeal.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are comparable marks. The court relied on the comparison of marks test and stated that the question of comparing two marks should be viewed from the perspective of a man with average intelligence and defective recall.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

Protecting Electric Vehicle Designs with Indian Design Patents

With the rapid growth of the electric vehicle (EV) market, protecting unique designs is crucial for manufacturers. Read this article to understand the importance of design patents in safeguarding EV innovations under Indian design law. IntroductionThe electric vehicles (EV) industry has seen an exponential growth whether it is technological advancements or environmental concern with sustainable mobility solutions. As creativity in the industry increases, safeguarding the unique designs of electric cars becomes essential. Design patents for electric vehicles are one of the best ways to protect the distinctive aesthetic and functional features seen in EVs. This article examines how electric vehicle manufacturers in India can use design patents to protect their innovations and provide a detailed overview of Indian design patent law, including the perspective of the Indian Design Patent Office. What is a Design Patent? A design patent protects the visual and ornamental features of the product, such as its shape, configuration, and general appearance of the product. Design patents cover the look of a product, compared with utility patents, which cover the functional aspects of an invention. For instance, design patents for electric vehicles can protect the overall shape of the vehicle, the layout of the dashboard, the design of seats, the look of the lighting elements, and any other visual features of the vehicle. Definition of “Design” under Indian Law According to the Designs Act, 2000, a design is defined as the “features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article, whether in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form, by any industrial process or means, including any known process or means.” Essentially, the design encompasses any visual aspect of an article that is aesthetically appealing and can be viewed by the eye. The design needs to be novel and industrially applicable. This means that it must be possible to reproduce it on a large scale using industrial processes, such as mass production techniques.” For EVs, the design could also include: Why are Design Patents Important for EV Manufacturers? Indian Design Patent Law In India, the protection of designs falls under the Designs Act, 2000, and the Designs Rules,2001. This legislation provides the legal framework for registering and protecting the visual and ornamental aspects of an article, including electric vehicles. The Designs Act allows for the registration of designs that are new, original, and have industrial application. Here are the key aspects of Indian Design Patent Law relevant to EV manufacturers: For the manufacturers of electric vehicles, this implies that there can be no replication of a single element whether it be the vehicle’s exterior, the dashboard or any other segment; it must be unique in its design. Design protection plays a significant role for the plaintiffs in sectors like the EV industry, where the visual attractiveness of a product is crucial to its viability. This prevents competitors from copying the unique features that make the manufacturer’s vehicle stand out in the market. Design patent strategies for EVs can ensure that unique features are protected from competitors copying successful elements in the marketplace. Role of the Indian Design Patent Office In India, designs are registered with the Indian Design Patent Office which operates under the aegis of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM). Its role is critical in the examination of design patents and in granting protection for intellectual property. The office acts a forum for adjudicating design-related disputes. The office provides various services, including: Conclusion With the EV sector blooming in India, the design of these electric vehicles now requires protection more than ever. The aesthetic features that distinguish an EV in the market are protected through electric vehicle design patents, which represent a powerful means of protection for these types of vehicles. This will also help to avoid a situation where Indian electric vehicle manufacturers spend considerable time creating innovative products with no recourse to patent protection to gain a competitive advantage. By effectively registering and safeguarding their distinctive designs, manufacturers can not only set their offerings apart but also establish a robust portfolio of intellectual property that will contribute to their sustainable growth in the fiercely competitive global EV landscape.

Read More »

How Design Patents Protect Automotive Innovations in India

Do you know how automotive companies in India protect their unique vehicle designs? Read this article to understand the importance of design patents, how to file one in India, and the step-by-step process to safeguard your automotive innovations. Introduction With the Indian Automotive industry moving at a fast pace, the one thing that defines the company’s standing is the innovation or uniqueness of the vehicle’s design. The rise in demand for new models and technology also calls for plenty of protection for these types of innovation. Designs play an important role in the attractiveness and branding of automotive goods and applications. In this article, we shall focus on how a design patent protects automotive innovations, the process to obtain one, and how it helps the automotive industry in India. What Is a Design Patent? Unlike utility patents, a design patent does not cover the way a product operates — it instead protects its appearance, including its shape, configuration and ornamentation. In the automotive world, this includes the exterior and interior styling of a vehicle, aka the car body, headlights, grill and dashboard, as well as the actual arrangement of the seats. Design patents differ from utility patents in that the latter protects the functional aspects of an invention, whereas design patents protect the aesthetic appeal of the product. Vehicle design patent protection in India is granted under the Indian Design Act, 2000 and the Design Rules, 2001, under which a framework exists for registration and protection of industrial designs. How Design Patents Protect Automotive Innovations in India In a country like India, where automotive design innovation is paramount in establishing product differentiation in a saturated space, a design patent ensures protection of the characteristics. Design patent protection for vehicles ensures that no other manufacturer can reproduce or imitate a car’s unique design without facing legal repercussions. A design patent allows automakers to stop the copying or replication of the design of their vehicle. This immunity is granted for 10 years and can be renewed. In a highly competitive space such as India, protecting market share as well as brand identity becomes crucial for automotive firms. How to File a Design Patent in India Filing a design patent in India involves a few systematic steps, ensuring that the innovation is properly registered and protected. Here’s how you can navigate the design patent application process in India for your vehicle design: Design Patent Requirements in India There are specific design patent requirements in India that applicants must meet: In the case of automotive companies, it becomes necessary for them to ensure that the design of the vehicle is concerned is compliant with these parameters before they can file for a design patent. Cost of Design Patent in India The cost of design patent in India varies depending on few factors such as the legal representation of the applicant, application fees & renewal fees. The filing fees for individuals and small entities are relatively low, making it an affordable option for automotive companies, especially startups or smaller players in the industry. The statutory filing fee for individual is approximately INR 1,000 and for a company, the cost may rise up to INR- 4,000 for each application. Steps to Obtain a Design Patent in India Here are the steps to obtain a design patent in India for a vehicle: Importance of Design Patent Protection for Vehicles In the Indian automotive industry, protecting design patents is important for encouraging innovation. It also assists car manufacturers to safeguard the time, effort, and money invested in designing their cars so that other manufacturers do not copy them. With most Indian consumers inclined toward vehicles with distinctive and attractive aesthetics, automakers need to safeguard their design identity. Furthermore, a design patent acts to protect the brand from counterfeit products flooding into the market, ensuring safety by preserving the integrity of the brand. It also provides automakers with the opportunity to distinguish themselves in a competitive market through the improved development and marketing of products with new and protected designs. Indian Design Patent Laws Indian design patent laws focus on protecting the ornamental or aesthetic qualities of industrial products, and the Indian Design Act is in alignment with international design protection standards. This allows the automakers in India to protect their vehicle designs and at the same time, apply for protection under the Hague System for international designs. ConclusionThe Indian automotive industry is highly competitive and a design patent is an important way to protect innovative designs for vehicles. Having a deep understanding of how the Design Patent application process works in India along with the requirements, cost, and steps is imperative for automotive companies to protect their Intellectual Property. As the Indian automobile market expands, the demand for design protection will only increase, and it presents a great deal of value for the creators and innovators of automotive designs. By filing a design patent in India, automotive companies can ensure that their creative innovations are well-protected, fostering a more vibrant and competitive automotive industry.

Read More »

Design or Patent? Securing Your Auto Innovations the Right Way

In the automobile industry, intellectual property (IP) is of utmost important in order to protect new ideas and technologies. Two key types of IP that are often discussed in the context of the automotive sector are design protection and patents. While these two serve different purposes, they often overlap, especially in the automobile sector. In this article, we will cover what design and patent protections are, how they work, where they overlap, and what challenges businesses face. What is Design Protection? Design refers to the look or aesthetics of a product. In the field of automobile industry, design protection can cover the external shape of a car, the design of its parts, or its internal features. Design protection aims to stop others copying the distinctive look of a product. The Design Act and Eligibility In India, design protection is governed by the Design Act, 2000. To qualify for design protection, the design must meet these requirements: What Can Be Protected as a Design in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, you can protect many things as a design, including: For example, the shark fin antenna on luxury cars or the unique grille of sports cars are examples of designs that can be protected. What is a Patent? A patent protects inventions—novel, useful products or processes. In the automobile industry, patents typically protect technological innovations and mechanical systems that make a vehicle work better. The Patent Act and Eligibility In India, patents are governed by the Patents Act, 1970. To get a patent, the invention must meet these criteria: Protection Time for Patents Patents last for 20 years from the filing date, as long as you pay maintenance fees. After that, anyone can use the invention freely. What Can Be Patented in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, patents can cover things like: For example, Tesla’s electric powertrain or BMW’s advanced braking systems are patented technologies. Overlap Between Design and Patent Protection Design and patent protections have different purposes, but they often overlap in the automobile industry. A single product, like a car, can be protected by both design and patent. Here’s how: Challenges of Overlapping Design and Patent While having both design and patent protection can be helpful, it also comes with challenges: How to File for Design and Patent Protection? Filing for both design and patent protection requires careful planning and understanding of the legal process. It’s important to work with a lawyer who knows how to handle both types of protection. Conclusion The interplay between design and patent protection in the automobile industry provides opportunities and challenges for companies that want to protect their innovations. However, it also comes with challenges like complexity and costs. By understanding the differences between design and patent protection, and with the help of expert legal guidance, businesses can better protect their innovations and stay ahead in the competitive automobile market. Contact Intellect Vidhya Solutions—your partner in protecting intellectual property for any questions or needed support in navigating the complexities of design and patent law.

Read More »

AI Voice Cloning and Its Copyright Legalities: The Arijit Singh Case

The fast developments in AI voice synthesis led to in a revolutionary era in technology: immediate voice cloning. Modern algorithms can now produce a nearly identical replica of an individual’s voice using just a few minutes of their voice recording. Most of us probably have heard a number of songs that include the voice of our Prime Minister; these recreated tracks are a clear example of AI voice cloning. Such technology has allowed creators and businesses to create things like songs, speeches, etc., in the unique yet identifiable voices. It could enhance creative and personalized media but, in doing so, also creates complex ethical and legal difficulties, particularly with respect to copyright, privacy, and personality rights. AI Voice Cloning: Understanding the Technology Voice cloning is dependent on the cutting-edge of deep learning and machine learning algorithms to analyze an individual’s voice frequencies, tone, and accents. Once those specific characteristics are recorded, they can be reproduced digitally in order to create audio that as closely as possible resembles the original speaker. This feature, when paired up with Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML), enables users to personalize aspects like pronunciation, pitch, and speed, making it as realistic and lively a voice as possible, closely identifying with a natural human voice. These are great possibilities, but there is a flip side where this technology can be abused if used without the knowledge of the person whose voice it matches. The Arijit Singh Case: A Significant Decision on Personality Rights The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in favour of Bollywood singer Arijit Singh brought attention to the legal issues surrounding AI voice cloning. The court, in the present case, provided interim relief to Arijit Singh, recognising that his voice, name, and likeness are essential components of his identity, referred to as “personality rights.” Arijit Singh initiated legal action against Codible Ventures LLP, a firm that allowed users to generate content using his voice without obtaining consent. The court’s decision to define the unauthorised use of Singh’s voice as a violation of his rights sets an important precedent. It emphasises that an individual’s voice, much like their name or image, is an integral aspect of their identity and is protected under personality rights.  The court acknowledged Singh’s status as a well-known and influential artist, pointing out his reputation and goodwill in India. The court highlighted that previous cases concerning personality rights indicate that using a celebrity’s voice or personal traits for commercial gain without permission constitutes a clear violation of those rights. This ruling clearly suggests that tools that allow for the generation of content in a celebrity’s voice without their permission infringe upon their rights and pose risks to their economic and public standing. Legal Considerations: Copyright, Personal Rights, and More The decision involving Arijit Singh carries major consequences for several legal concepts, such as copyright, intellectual property, and personality rights. 1. Personality Rights: This case highlights that a celebrity’s name, voice, and likeness are integral parts of their personal brand and identity. Protecting these rights stops illicit third parties from profiting off someone else’s identity and plays a crucial role in protecting their career and livelihood. 2. Copyright and Ownership: The complexities of ownership arise when dealing with AI-generated content that utilises cloned voices. Is the voice model subject to copyright protection, and who holds the legal rights to the content generated with that voice? When a voice model originates from a public figure, the boundaries of copyright law can become vague. It raises questions about who actually holds the rights: the creator, the individual whose voice is replicated, or the developer of the AI. 3. Economic and Reputational Concerns: The unauthorised use of a prominent voice can have adverse impacts on the person’s professional life. In Singh’s situation, his reputation and popularity render his voice a crucial element of his personal brand. The court’s decision recognises the potential harm that unauthorised use of his voice may pose to his professional standing and revenue. 4. Right to Publicity: This case expands the idea of an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity. With the growing ease of AI voice cloning, it is becoming more vital to safeguard individuals against the unauthorised use of their identity. This acknowledgement offers a foundation for protecting people’s identities and personal characteristics in the era of AI. Setting Standards for AI Voice Cloning The Arijit Singh case highlights the pressing need for well-defined and thorough regulations concerning the commercial application of AI voice cloning technology. Considering the possibility of misuse, here are some suggestions to tackle these challenges:  Explicit Consent Requirements: The use of an individual’s voice or likeness must obtain clear, documented consent, especially when it pertains to commercial purposes. Transparency: Informing consumers about the use of an AI-generated voice is crucial to prevent any potential misunderstanding, particularly when the cloned voice closely resembles a well-known individual. Defining Usage Boundaries: Setting clear boundaries between personal and commercial applications can help prevent misuse while allowing individuals to utilise the technology for their own non-commercial purposes. Conclusion This ruling by the Bombay High Court, giving practical effect to Arijit Singh’s right over his voice, is a positive balancing act between harnessing the modern technology of AI voice cloning and protecting individual rights. Considering the new technology of voice synthesis, society must develop legal protections against the appropriation of one’s voice, name, and likeness. This ruling is a landmark case in that it shows how the law can adapt to emerging technology and preserve innovation while ensuring the protection of individual rights against invasive practices. Such frameworks will be critical to ensure the responsible use of this powerful tool, prevent misuse, and safeguard individual identities as we explore its potential further.

Read More »