Intellectual Property And Its Attributes

Indian patent application status refers to the latest status of an application in the tracking system of the Indian Patent Office.

YouTube operates within the framework of international copyright laws and has policies to protect intellectual property owners while balancing fair use.

Learn about the trademark registration fees in India, including costs for individuals, startups, and businesses. Understand filing methods, additional charges, and more.

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the production, reproduction and dissemination of creative works, as well as posing intricate challenges for copyright law. A major type of synthetic media, deepfakes also pose further issues regarding copyright violations, personality rights, privacy concerns, and intermediary liability.

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures on August 7, 2026, laying down a framework for the use of AI in patent examination.

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.

The Delhi High Court has, for now, treated AI training as fair dealing. The government has proposed a licence that no rights holder could refuse. Publishers abroad are building their own technical standards. Between the three lies the question Indian law has not yet answered: whether a copyright owner can refuse to let its work train a machine, and what that refusal is worth.

The Delhi High Court, in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OpCo LLC, has delivered India's first significant ruling on the application of copyright law to the training and functioning of large language models ("LLMs").

The Copyright Act, 1957 uses two different terms for a work- ‘Authorship' and ‘Ownership'. Is there a difference between the two?