![\"\"](\"https:\/\/iprmentlaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/ChatGPT-Image-Sep-13-2026-09_15_00-PM.png\" "\\"ChatGPT")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\nTRAI Repeals 12-Minute TV Advertising Cap<\/strong><\/p>\n The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) repealed its long standing regulation capping television advertisements at 12 minutes per clock hour. This was done through the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) (Repealing) Regulations, 2026, which repealed the 2012 regulations along with all orders and directions issued under them.<\/p>\n The move follows an earlier decision by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which had omitted Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, through a notification published in the Official Gazette on August 21, 2026, effectively removing the 12-minute ad-duration cap for TV channels. The government justified this on grounds of significant changes in the broadcasting sector, increased competition and consumer choice, and a push for ease of doing business.<\/p>\n Since TRAI\u2019s 2012 rules existed mainly to enforce MIB\u2019s deleted provision, TRAI said continuing its own regulations would no longer be consistent with the amended Cable Television Networks Rules, prompting the repeal. The change gives broadcasters greater flexibility in scheduling and monetizing advertising inventory, particularly during prime-time slots, ending a rule that had governed TV ad limits for over a decade.<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n ANI Appeals Delhi HC Order Denying Interim Relief Against OpenAI<\/strong><\/p>\n The Asian News International (ANI) has filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, challenging a single judge\u2019s July 24, 2026 order that denied it interim relief in its copyright infringement suit against OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. In its original injunction application, ANI had sought directions to stop OpenAI from storing, publishing, or reproducing its copyrighted content, arguing that ChatGPT reproduced its news material and even attributed false statements to it.<\/p>\n Justice Amit Bansal had rejected that plea, holding that OpenAI\u2019s storage of ANI\u2019s original works for training ChatGPT falls under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act and does not amount to infringement. The judge also found no substantial similarity between ChatGPT\u2019s outputs and ANI\u2019s articles, and said granting an injunction could harm public interest given ChatGPT\u2019s transformative, widely-used nature.<\/p>\n ANI\u2019s appeal, filed through advocate Sidhant Kumar, argues the single judge misread copyright law and improperly widened the scope of \u201cfair use\u201d for commercial purposes. The appeal is being heard by a Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, with the underlying infringement suit still pending.<\/p>\n Case Title<\/strong>: ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OPCO LLC.<\/p>\n Case No<\/strong>: FAO (OS) (COMM) \u2013 237\/2026 Dunes Aviation Sues Nora Fatehi Over \u201cLego Airplane\u201d Remark<\/strong><\/p>\n Ahmedabad-based Dunes Aviation has filed a \u20b93-crore civil defamation suit against Bollywood actor Nora Fatehi at a Gandhinagar court, alleging that her \u201cderogatory and reckless\u201d social media comments about its chartered aircraft damaged the company\u2019s reputation. The suit, filed in April 2026, will be heard by senior civil judge R. Agarwal on September 25.<\/p>\n The dispute stems from a Mumbai-Jaipur flight Fatehi took in December 2025 aboard a Dunes Aviation Cessna Citation CJ2. She recorded videos inside the aircraft, describing it as a \u201cminiature,\u201d a \u201ctoy,\u201d and a \u201cLego airplane,\u201d and posted them to Instagram, where she has over 4.6 crore followers.<\/p>\n Dunes Aviation claims the remarks were made \u201cwithout any technical knowledge, verification or factual basis\u201d and caused a 15\u201320% drop in bookings along with a rise in cancellations. The company maintains the aircraft is standard, DGCA-certified and lawfully operated under a valid NSOP.<\/p>\n Besides monetary damages, the suit seeks a court order directing removal of the related content from Fatehi\u2019s social media and a public clarification from the actor.<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mirzapur: The Movie Faces Row Over \u201cShoorveer\u201d Song Usage<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cMirzapur: The Movie\u201d has landed in controversy over its use of the song \u201cShoorveer,\u201d originally performed by Rajasthani artist Rapperiya Baalam (Ashok Manda Bishnoi). The track, dedicated to Maharana Pratap and his horse Chetak, was featured in a film sequence involving gangster characters, prompting Baalam to allege the makers used his song without permission or credit.<\/p>\n In an emotional Instagram video, Baalam said he was hurt not because his song appeared in a major film, but because of how it was used to \u201cglorify gangsters\u201d and because the Mirzapur team never sought his consent. He said he would have supported the makers had they approached him directly.<\/p>\n In response, Trouper Records, the music label behind the song, issued a clarification stating that \u201cShoorveer\u201d was officially licensed to Excel Entertainment for use in the film, crediting Baalam as singer and composer. This addressed the unauthorized use claim but not Baalam\u2019s objection to the song\u2019s context.<\/p>\n The controversy also drew political attention, with Rajasthan BJP leader Rajendra Rathore writing to the CBFC seeking the song\u2019s removal, calling its pairing with criminal characters disrespectful to Maharana Pratap\u2019s legacy. The film has meanwhile performed strongly at the box office.<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Saregama Seeks Contempt Action Against Ilaiyaraaja Over Copyright Order Violation<\/strong><\/p>\n Saregama India has moved the Delhi High Court seeking contempt of court action against veteran composer Ilaiyaraaja, alleging he continued to exploit and assert ownership over songs covered by a standing injunction. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice on the plea and sought Ilaiyaraaja\u2019s response.<\/p>\n The application arises from Saregama\u2019s ongoing copyright suit, in which the Delhi High Court, on February 13, 2026, had passed an interim order restraining Ilaiyaraaja and those acting for him from exploiting, licensing, or claiming ownership over copyrighted works spanning music from 134 films. Ilaiyaraaja\u2019s subsequent plea to vacate that injunction was dismissed by the court on July 1.<\/p>\n Saregama now alleges the composer openly defied the injunction by continuing to make the covered works available on platforms like Spotify and YouTube, and by asserting ownership claims to third parties citing, among other examples, a May 8 legal notice to Beyond Pictures over the song \u201cPodhuvaga Emmanasu Thangam\u201d from Murattukkaalai.<\/p>\n The company has asked the court to detain Ilaiyaraaja in civil prison, attach his movable and immovable properties, and appoint a receiver to sell the attached assets and remit proceeds to Saregama.<\/p>\n Case Title<\/strong>: Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja.<\/p>\n Case No<\/strong>: CS(COMM) 143\/2026<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Delhi HC Told \u201cKala Hiran\u201d Not Yet Certified, Not Ready for Release<\/strong><\/p>\n The makers of the proposed film \u201cKala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy\u201d, said to be inspired by Salman Khan\u2019s 1998 blackbuck poaching case, told the Delhi High Court on September 10 that the film is not in a releasable state, as it has yet to be certified by the Censor Board. Justice Jyoti Singh recorded the statement and directed the defendants to file their reply within two weeks, with the matter listed next for September 30.<\/p>\n Khan\u2019s counsel had argued that a release could cause the actor \u201cimmense harm,\u201d noting the makers themselves had indicated a September release. When the court asked about the film\u2019s release timeline, counsel for the producer said instructions were needed and raised objections to the suit\u2019s maintainability and jurisdiction. Khan\u2019s side pointed out that OTT release doesn\u2019t require CBFC certification, which the court noted.<\/p>\n In his suit, Khan has named producer Amit Jani, Jani FireFox Films, director Bharat Shrinate, and casting director Akshay Pandey as defendants. He is seeking an injunction against the film\u2019s release, takedown of its teaser, a public apology, destruction of promotional material, and damages exceeding \u20b92 crore, alleging the film violates his personality rights by portraying him with underworld links.<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Delhi HC Bars Misuse of AI Deepfakes Infringing Rajat Sharma\u2019s Personality Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction protecting India TV Editor-in-Chief Rajat Sharma\u2019s personality and publicity rights against AI-generated deepfake misuse. Hearing a suit filed by Sharma and India TV, Justice Amit Bansal restrained multiple defendants from misusing or exploiting Sharma\u2019s name, likeness, image, voice, or other personal traits without his written authorization.<\/p>\n Sharma, described in the plea as a \u201crenowned journalist\u201d and a two-decade fixture on Indian television, alleged that unknown persons were using AI to create doctored videos bearing his distorted image and voice to falsely promote drugs for conditions like diabetes, prostatitis, and joint pain, some claiming endorsement by eminent doctors or government certification. Similar tactics allegedly misused the likenesses of Amitabh Bachchan and Dr. Naresh Trehan.<\/p>\n The court also found India TV\u2019s registered trademarks, including \u201cAaj Ki Baat: Rajat Sharma Ke Sath,\u201d were being used without authorization. Holding that a prima facie case was made out and irreparable injury would result otherwise, the court directed Meta Platforms to take down the infringing content and disclose the defendants\u2019 identifying details. The case builds on Sharma\u2019s broader push, including a PIL, for stronger legal safeguards against deepfake misuse in India.<\/p>\n Case Title<\/strong>: Rajat Sharma & Anr. V. Tamara Doc & Ors.<\/p>\n Case No<\/strong>: CS(COMM) 1147\/2024<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Gujarat HC Quashes FIR: No Copyright Offence in Counterfeit Apple Goods Case<\/strong><\/p>\n The Gujarat High Court has quashed a criminal FIR registered against a shopkeeper for selling counterfeit Apple accessories, holding that the allegations amount to trademark misuse rather than copyright infringement. Justice P.M. Raval observed that neither the FIR nor the seizure memo identified any specific literary or artistic work copied from Apple, making the prosecution under the Copyright Act legally unsustainable.<\/p>\n The case originated from an FIR filed on October 19, 2022, at Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad, against Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani, following a complaint by a manager at Griffin Intellectual Property Service Pvt. Ltd., a firm authorized by Apple Inc. to act against counterfeiters. A police raid on Kiplani\u2019s shop, \u201cRaj Cover House,\u201d led to the seizure of AirPods, cables, power adapters, a smartwatch, and Apple-branded stickers worth over \u20b915 lakh, with the FIR invoking Sections 51, 63, and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.<\/p>\n Kiplani\u2019s counsel argued that the seized items were commercial hardware, not \u201cartistic or literary works\u201d under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, and that such counterfeiting properly falls under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 instead, a position the court accepted in quashing the case.<\/p>\n Case Title<\/strong>: Jitendrabhai Mohanbhai Kiplani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.<\/p>\n Case No<\/strong>: R\/Criminal Misc. Application No. 21846 of 2022<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Delhi HC Summons Defendants in Pulkit Mani\u2019s Copyright Suit; Meta Restores Two Reels<\/strong><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court has issued summons in a lawsuit filed by stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani over copyright strikes imposed on his Instagram page following complaints by unknown persons. Justice Jyoti Singh also issued notice on Mani\u2019s interim relief application. During the hearing, Meta Platforms informed the court that it had restored the two Instagram Reels at the center of the dispute.<\/p>\n Defendants named include Meta, Google, WhatsApp, Microsoft, the Union of India, and several John Doe defendants, including unidentified Instagram accounts. Mani, a comedian with over 592,000 followers who has performed since 2021, alleges the Reels were his original work, but that copyright strikes were recorded against his page despite his appeals, and that he received no reasoned response from Meta. He also claims to have received threats of further strikes from unidentified individuals.<\/p>\n Meta agreed to share subscriber and IP log details for certain John Doe defendants; Google and WhatsApp committed to submitting related data within two to three weeks. Mani is seeking a declaration of ownership, removal of the strikes, protection from account suspension, disclosure of the complainants\u2019 identities, and \u20b92.20 crore in damages. The interim relief plea is listed for January 18.<\/p>\n Case Title<\/strong>: Pulkit Mani v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.<\/p>\n Case No<\/strong>: CS(COMM) 982\/2026<\/p>\n You can read more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n