Anabiya Habib

Conventional notions of trademark law suggest that emulating a popular product or service carries certain legal risks. However, a recent federal ruling highlights the complexities of trademark infringement cases involving "dupe" products, and shows there may be a greater tolerance for mimicry in some industries.

In a recent order passed on December 24, 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed the serious issue of trademark infringement and fraudulent activities by the defendant in the ongoing case CS(COMM) 1215/2024. The matter, filed by MS RKSV Securities India Pvt. Ltd. (commonly known as Upstox), highlighted an instance of illegal use of the plaintiff's trademark and copyrighted content by unknown entities.

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction to HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd, one of the promoter companies of the HCL Group, in its trademark infringement case against Healthcare HCL Reference Laboratories & Ors. The plaintiff, HCL Corporation, which owns the ‘HCL’ trademark and its variants, alleged that the defendants had unlawfully used the mark for healthcare services, causing confusion and misleading the public. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and restrained the defendants from using the impugned trademarks. The matter will next be heard on March 25, 2025.

The Copyright Office released part one of its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, specifically addressing the topic of digital replicas, or "deepfakes" — i.e., AI-generated video, image, or audio recordings that realistically but falsely depict an individual. The report is the result of a broad initiative to explore the intersection of copyright and AI, informed by a series of listening sessions and meetings with stakeholders, as well as more than 10,000 public comments from authors, artists, publishers, lawyers, academics, industry groups, and more.