INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Safir Anand and Twinky Rampal, Anand and Anand Advocates
• The appellant is required to submit all relevant documents and evidence intended to be relied upon, along with an affidavit to prove the same. Jurisdiction The appropriate forum for filing the appeal is the High Court that has jurisdiction. The High Court has the authority to hear appeals relat - ed to trade mark matters, including those concerning the decisions or orders passed by the Registrar. 11.2 Timeframes for Appealing Trial Court Decisions Appeal from trial court: An appeal can be taken to an appellate court if there are grounds such as errors of law, facts or procedure. The time within which to file an appeal is generally 90 days (or three months for trade mark appeals), but can be extended in some cases. Time to decide an appeal: The time for an appellate court to decide an appeal varies. In general, it can take anywhere from six months to two years, depending on the complexity of the case and the workload of the court. In a significant move to modernise the trade mark registration process, the Trade Marks Registry has introduced an artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning-based trade mark search facility. Launched by the Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, this technology aims to enhance the efficiency and accu - As AI continues to permeate numerous sectors, India’s approach to integrating AI within its trade mark and copyright laws is evolving. While a compre - hensive statutory framework specifically addressing AI-generated works is yet to be established, recent developments indicate a proactive stance in adapting existing IP laws to encompass AI-related challenges. racy of trade mark searches. AI and Copyright Law in India 12. Additional Considerations 12.1 Emerging Issues AI and Trade Mark Law in India
In this regard, the Parliamentary Standing Committee, in its Report No. 161 titled “Review of the Intellec - tual Property Rights Regime in India”, recommended review of the Copyright Act 1957 to expand to scope of authorship in AI-generated works. Emerging legal considerations Indian courtrooms (in particular, the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court) have so far witnessed four major IP cases involving infringement of IP rights through the use of GenAI tools. These are: 1. Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 This case was filed by the celebrated actor Mr Anil Kapoor for protection of his personality rights against misuse of his image and likeness in various Deepfake videos as well as by users of AI tools, such as “Mid - journey”, to generate images of the actor. The Delhi High Court, by way of its order dated 20 September 2024, restrained such illegal and unauthorised use of AI to produce or imitate Mr Kapoor’s persona (image, voice, likeness, etc). Mr Anil Kapoor also subsequently featured in Time ‘s “100 Most Influential People in AI”. 2. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf (Jackie Shroff) v Peppy Store , 2024 SCC Online Del 3664 This case involved infringement of eminent actor Mr Jackie Shroff’s personality rights by, inter alia, an unli - censed chatbot, which provided responses to users’ chats in the actor’s iconic and inimitable mannerism and style. The Court observed that such use amounts to a violation of the actor’s personality rights and restrained such misuse. 3. Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures LLP , 2024 SCC Online Bom 2445 This case, filed before the Bombay High Court, involved infringement of the well-known singer Mr Arijit Singh’s personality rights, mainly by the misuse of the singer’s voice, vocal style and vocal arrange - ments by various users of certain AI tools to generate artificial sound recordings of the singer’s voice. The Court restrained such infringement of the plaintiff’s
208 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook