Warner Bros. Discovery to split into two companies
Warner Bros. Discovery has announced plans to split into two separate public companies by mid‑2026. One will focus on streaming and studios, including HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and DC Studios, while the other will house its global networks like CNN, Discovery, and TNT Sports. The move aims to sharpen business focus amid streaming competition and cord-cutting pressures. Shares jumped 11% following the announcement. The split mirrors trends across media peers like Comcast, breaking apart legacy and digital assets to build more agile stand‑alone businesses. Pending final approval, the separation is expected to wrap up by mid‑2026.
Read more about it here.
Fresh plea against YouTuber Mohak Mangal by ANI over unauthorized use of news videos
A Delhi court on Monday issued notices to YouTuber Mohak Mangal and Google LLC in a copyright and trademark infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI). ANI has accused Mangal of using its video content without authorization in his YouTube videos. While the court declined to grant an interim order for the continued takedown of the contested videos, District Judge (Commercial Court) Balwant Rai Bansal listed the matter for further hearing on July 26, 2025.
This is the second legal action ANI has brought against Mangal. In a separate case before the Delhi High Court, ANI had alleged “disparagement and defamation” after Mangal reportedly described the agency’s copyright enforcement and licensing practices as extortionate. On May 29, 2025, Mangal consented to remove the disputed remarks from his video.
Read more about it here.
Comments invited on the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2025: Submit by 4th July
On June 4, 2025, the DPIIT issued proposed Rule 83(A) under the Copyright Rules, 2013, requiring licensors of literary works, musical works, and sound recordings to set up an exclusive online payment system for license fees related to public communication
The draft mandates that all such license fee payments be processed only through the digital mechanism—no cash, cheques, installments, or other offline methods allowed.
You can download the draft amendment rules here.
NCLAT Upholds CCI ruling, rejects stay for UFO Moviez and Qube Cinema
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on June 11 refused to stay the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) penalty against UFO Moviez India and Qube Cinema Technologies, rejecting interim relief and ordering a 25% deposit of the ₹2.69 crore fine within two weeks. The CCI had found both firms guilty of imposing exclusive-content clauses in their digital cinema equipment lease agreements, curbing competition. The tribunal noted that the balance of convenience and prima facie evidence favoured the CCI. A full hearing is scheduled for August 1, with both sides given timelines to file replies and rejoinders
You can read more about it here.
Disney & Universal Sue Midjourney Over AI Copyright Infringement
Disney and Universal filed a joint copyright lawsuit on June 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Midjourney of using their copyrighted characters—such as Darth Vader, Elsa, the Minions, Shrek, and Homer Simpson to train its AI image-generation models without permission. This lawsuit marks the first major legal challenge by Hollywood’s top film studios against a generative AI company and could define future boundaries for AI use in creative work.
You can read more about it here.
Bombay High Court refuses to recognise TikTok as a Well-Known Trademark due to ongoing ban in India
The Bombay High Court has dismissed TikTok’s petition seeking “well-known trademark” status under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. TikTok argued that the Registrar wrongly considered the app’s ban in India on national security grounds and failed to apply the correct statutory test under Section 11(6)–(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court upheld the Registrar’s discretion, holding that the factors under Section 11(6) are illustrative, not exhaustive, and that the ongoing ban—based on serious national interest concerns was a valid consideration. The Court also noted that TikTok remained a registered trademark in India with associated protections, but its well-known status could not be granted while the ban persisted.
Read more about it here.
Kerala High Court seeks State’s reply on plea to control movie ticket prices
The Kerala High Court has admitted a Public Interest Litigation filed by Manu Nair G., a resident of Kottayam, challenging the unregulated “dynamic pricing” of multiplex movie tickets where rates fluctuate based on demand, show timing, and release status. During the hearing before Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji on June 10, the bench sought a government response and scheduled the next hearing for July 1. The petitioner argued that, unlike states such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, which have imposed statutory controls or executive orders capping ticket prices, Kerala lacks any oversight mechanism, leaving consumers vulnerable to arbitrary pricing and potential inequality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Read more about it here.
Madras High Court denies Google’s request to dismiss Testbook Edu’s Suit against Play Store billing policy
The Madras High Court on June 15 refused to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Testbook Edu Solutions challenging Google’s mandatory Play Store billing system, in which app developers are compelled to use Google Play Billing System (GPBS) and pay a 13–15 % commission on in-app purchases. Unlike previous cases that were dismissed, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ruled this is a dispute over a bilateral contract rather than a broader competition issue, so it should proceed in court. The court also required Google to deposit 25 % of the ₹2.69 crore fine within two weeks . The matter is set for a full hearing on August 1, with both parties instructed to file their replies and rejoinders.
Read more about it here.
Getty Images Vs Stability AI on copyright violations and illegal data scraping
Getty Images has initiated a landmark copyright lawsuit in the UK’s High Court against Stability AI, claiming the company “brazenly infringed” its copyrights by scraping millions of images (including watermarked content) from Getty’s collection to train its Stable Diffusion AI model. Opening arguments have begun, with Getty asserting that AI developers must obtain proper licensing and should not exploit fair-use exceptions to bypass creators’ rights . Stability AI, however, denies wrongdoing, contending that the model’s training occurred outside the UK and emphasizing innovation and fair dealing. The trial, running into late June, could set a critical legal precedent on the use of copyrighted material in AI, shaping future licensing practices, jurisdictional reach, and potential reforms to UK copyright law.
Read more about it here.
Uttarakhand High Court quashes summons against Patanjali Ayurved, Baba Ramdev, Balkrishna in misleading advertisements case
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the criminal summons issued to Patanjali Ayurved, founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, in a case under the Drugs & Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma held that the complaint did not detail how the ads for products like Madhugrit, Livogrit, Coronil, etc., were false or misleading, there was no expert evidence or specific allegations, making the prosecution without legal basis. The Court also noted significant procedural flaws in the complaint.
Read more about it here.
Bombay HC upholds Rs 24 Crore Lawsuit against Film producer Firoz A. Nadiadwala, rejects quashing request: Formal service of summons not needed in transferred commercial suits where defendant has entered appearance
The Bombay High Court has dismissed filmmaker Firoz A. Nadiadwala’s application to quash a ₹24 crore commercial suit filed by businessman Anil Dhanraj Jethani over a financing agreement dated July 16, 2015. Nadiadwala argued that the suit must be dismissed because he was never formally served a summons and the agreement remained unsigned. However, Justice Abhay Ahuja held that once a defendant appears through counsel and takes part in proceedings, formal service isn’t required.
Read more about it here.
Allahabad High Court directs UP Govt to set up panel for online gaming regulation
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government to constitute a committee to examine and recommend regulations for online gaming and betting. The Court emphasized the urgent need for clear rules to address concerns over addiction, financial loss, and illegal betting activities. The state government has been asked to submit a progress report on the matter at the next hearing.
Read more about it here.
CCPA Directs E-commerce Platforms to Self‑Audit Within 3 Months to Eliminate “Dark Patterns”
The Central Consumer Protection Authority has issued an advisory dated June 7, 2025 mandating that all e-commerce platforms conduct comprehensive self-audits within three months to detect and remove deceptive design practices, commonly known as “dark patterns”. Following the audit, platforms are expected to submit self-declarations affirming that they are free of such misleading interfaces, a move aimed at promoting transparency and strengthening consumer trust within 3 months of the issue of the advisory
You may read the advisory here.
Delhi High Court: Trademark rights in contracts remain binding even after business relationship ends
The Delhi High Court held that a party which has contractually acknowledged another’s trademark rights cannot subsequently claim bona fide adoption of a similar mark after the business relationship ends. The matter was heard in appeals filed by Newgen IT Technologies Limited (formerly known as “VCare InfoTech Solutions and Services Pvt. Ltd.”) before the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, challenging the trial court’s orders granting a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from adopting and using the trademark “NEWGEN”.
The dispute arose after Newgen IT Technologies Limited (“Appellants”), following a formal business association with Newgen Software Technologies Limited (“Respondent”) between July 2023 and September 2024, began using the ‘NEWGEN’ trademark and corporate name for its operations, including initiating steps for a proposed IPO. The Respondent objected, asserting longstanding prior rights in the ‘NEWGEN’ mark, which it had continuously used since 1992. Consequently, the Respondent filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Appellant from using the impugned marks. The trial court, upon examining the pleadings and material on record, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Respondent, subsequently confirming it. In appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench, after thoroughly assessing the parties’ past relationship and respective trademark rights, upheld the injunction and dismissed the Appellants’ appeals.
You may read more about it here.