Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 JULY 2017

Intellectual Property And Pharmaceuticals (October 2016 - December 2016)

Seth Dua & Associates
Explore more from Seth Dua & Associates

By introducing the new Rules the Centre has focused on creating a separate registration and oversight system for medical devices and drugs.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Seth Dua & Associates
Seth Dua & Associates
Author LinkedIn connections

Restriction on The Monopoly Of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited And Phonographic Performance

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) vide its office memorandum 06-04/2016-CRB/LU dated 06.10.2016 has issued a clarification regarding the current status of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited (IPRS) and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL). Earlier both the societies were registered under the pre amended Copyright Act, 1957 for carrying out Copyright business in the field of musical & literary works and sound notification works respectively. The registration of both the societies expired on 21.06.2013, pursuant to which both of the organizations have applied for re-registrations under section 33 of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. Despite lapse of registrations, both IPRS and PPL continued to issue licenses for copyright works. While the DIPP notified of having constituted an enquiry against IPRS in view of certain allegation of

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

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
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

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.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law