The Government of Kerala has released the Draft Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) Policy of Kerala 2025 (“2025 Policy”), which seeks to reform the State’s Intellectual Property (IP) governance after 17 years. It modifies the 2008 policy framework by proposing key initiatives like “Mission IPR,” the establishment of an IPR Academy, and stronger measures for the protection and management of traditional knowledge.

A key objective of the 2025 Policy is to integrate IPR education across all levels of Kerala’s academic system, from schools to higher education, to raise awareness and promote careers in IPR. It proposes making IPR a mandatory subject and setting up a statutory IPR Academy for specialized training and awareness programs, including targeted training for police personnel. The policy mandates all research and educational institutions to establish IPR Cells and IP Management Committees. IPR Cells will promote a culture of creativity and guide on IP protection within institutions, while IP Management Committees will oversee the administration, licensing, and commercialization of IP assets. The policy ensures public institutions retain IP rights in externally funded research unless higher compensation is negotiated, with flexibility for centrally funded projects.

Complementing these initiatives is “Mission IPR,” an administrative mechanism providing technical, procedural, and non-financial support for promoting innovation, timely IP protection, and assistance with filings and litigation. It will also create databases to prevent misappropriation and conduct regular training programs to educate stakeholders on IPR laws and issues.

For Kerala’s Geographical Indications (GIs), the 2025 Policy aims to enhance their market impact and benefit producers by evaluating the socio-economic effects of GIs. It seeks to position GI products as premium goods with luxury appeal, ensuring they achieve positive price elasticity and better livelihoods for producers.

Another core aspect is the protection of TK, which is at risk of misappropriation in the era of globalization. Building on the success of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), the policy proposes the creation of a Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS), to document community-owned TK while respecting privacy and community rights. It also encourages the formation of Knowledge Societies or Trusts by TK holders to protect, research, and commercialize their knowledge, ensuring fair benefit sharing. Recognizing the limitations of traditional IPR for TK, the policy recommends a sui generis legal framework and the creation of the Kerala Traditional Knowledge Authority (KTKA) to oversee custodianship and legal action against misappropriation.

The 2008 policy primarily focused on preserving TK through community-based governance and awareness, emphasizing non-commercial use, and resisting commodification. Marking progression from the 2008 policy, the 2025 policy promotes a multifaceted approach with an emphasis on commercialization, innovation, and education in formal IPR systems, while still supporting community empowerment through tools like TKDS. The draft emphasizes upon integrating IPR education at all academic levels, fortifying geographical indication systems, while safeguarding Kerala’s rich traditional and indigenous knowledge base.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Digital piracy remains a persistent challenge for copyright holders, and online platforms play a crucial role in tackling it. Currently, most platforms adopt a notice-and-takedown approach, acting only when a rights holder raises a complaint. This reactive model raises an important question: Should platforms be legally required to take preemptive action against piracy? While such a move could strengthen copyright protection, the author believes that it raises concerns about fairness, feasibility, and unintended consequences.

Supporters of stricter measures argue that digital platforms benefit from user-generated content and should take greater responsibility for preventing copyright violations. Large-scale automated tools, like YouTube’s Content ID, suggest that proactive filtering is achievable, at least to some extent. More stringent obligations could deter habitual piracy and provide a stronger safeguard for content creators. Furthermore, placing the entire burden of enforcement on rights holders is neither practical nor equitable, especially for smaller creators who lack the resources to police piracy themselves.

The author believes that requiring platforms to actively monitor content comes with significant downsides. Even the most sophisticated automated filters still get it wrong by mistaking lawful content like reviews, parodies, and educational material for piracy. This leads to frustrated creators, wrongful takedowns, and excessive censorship. Moreover, proactive monitoring would place a heavy financial and technical burden on smaller platforms, potentially driving them out of the market. If compliance becomes a game only deep-pocketed tech giants can play, smaller platforms do not stand a chance. The result? Less competition, fewer innovative voices, and an online space that becomes increasingly monopolized.

Then, there is the elephant in the room: the big corporations gaming the system. With the right legal muscle, copyright claims could become a convenient tool to silence critics, muzzle competition, and control the narrative. All in the name of ‘enforcement’. Faced with the threat of legal trouble, platforms are more likely to play it safe by blocking first and asking questions later. Before long, we are likely to see a system where lawful content gets swept up in the dragnet, and creators are left scrambling to fight wrongful takedowns.

While piracy is a legitimate issue, forcing platforms into an aggressive policing role may introduce more problems than it solves. The focus should be on accountability in enforcement, not mass surveillance of content.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The explosion of social media has made celebrities more visible than ever, with their images and personalities constantly in the spotlight. This increased exposure has also made them more vulnerable to unauthorized commercial exploitation, where their likeness is used without consent to promote products or mislead the public. In response, many celebrities seek broad injunctions to protect their personality rights. While these legal tools aim to prevent misuse, they also ignite a debate about their fairness and the impact on public expression. The author argues that while protection is necessary, overly broad injunctions, which prohibit using the likeness of a celebrity via any current or future mediums, are ultimately unjustified due to their chilling effect on free speech, more so when they are granted in ex-parte cases.

From one point of view, celebrities are at a greater risk of exploitation due to their high public profile. Their images are frequently misused for profit, often without their knowledge or approval, leading to both financial and reputational damage. Broad injunctions provide a safety net, giving celebrities the power to control how their persona is used. They also serve as a strong deterrent against anonymous online users who exploit the lack of accountability to misuse a celebrity’s image for personal gain. For many, these legal measures are essential to preserving the dignity and privacy of public figures.

However, it can also be argued that such injunctions can go too far, stifling free speech in the process. Public figures naturally invite scrutiny, criticism, and even satire—forms of expression that are integral to a healthy democracy. Broad injunctions risk silencing these voices, creating an atmosphere where even legitimate critique or humorous commentary becomes risky. This could discourage open dialogue and undermine the public’s ability to hold influential figures accountable. Additionally, such measures could set a dangerous precedent, where the boundaries of free speech are continually pushed back under the guise of protecting individual rights.

In conclusion, while celebrities have a legitimate interest in safeguarding their personality rights, the reach of broad injunctions must be carefully examined. These legal tools, though intended to protect the dignity and privacy of public figures, carry significant implications for the broader societal principles of expression and critique. By restricting the public’s ability to engage openly with influential figures, such injunctions risk creating an environment where legitimate discourse is stifled, and the space for humor, criticism, and accountability is diminished.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Advertisers in India are now subject to a regime of self-certification under which every advertiser is required to submit a self-declaration for every advertisement to the effect that it does not contain any misleading claims and is compliant with applicable regulatory standards of advertising. Self-certifications for radio and print advertisements have to submitted on the Broadcast Seva portal of the Government of India, and self-certifications for print and digital/internet advertisements have to be submitted on the Press Council of India’s website. While the decision is undoubtedly well intentioned, in the author’s view, the requirement of submitting a self-declaration is not fit for its purpose.

The establishment of this self-certification regime has almost no effect on the extent and nature of liability an advertiser may face, since there is no legal theory under which the submission of a self-declaration in and of itself creates or extinguishes any liability. Instead, the self-certification regime has unduly increased the compliance burden of advertisers. Advertisers need to file a self-declaration prior to airing or publishing every single advertisement. Given the volume of advertisements in the industry, this translates to a significant compliance burden. The limited benefits of the self-certification mechanism are not commensurate with this burden.

Indeed, there is currently no robust regulatory mechanism for proceeding against advertisers who air or publish false or misleading advertisements and that is the raison d’etre for the widespread prevalence of such advertisements. However, in the author’s view, mandating self-certification by advertisers is not an appropriate solution to that social problem. Instead, a better solution would be to strengthen the capacity and enforcement posture of existing governmental authorities, and establish new authorities if required, to ensure that there sustained, prompt and effective enforcement action can be taken against delinquent advertisers. 

To that end, the capacity of the newly established Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 may be enhanced, to enable it to effectively pursue more actions against delinquent advertisers. Misleading advertisements are fundamentally a wrong against consumers. Therefore, the CCPA, as a specialized consumer regulator, is particularly well placed to take on the responsibility of enforcing fair advertisement standards.

The continued proliferation of misleading advertisements stems not from the absence of self-declarations, but from a lack of prompt and credible regulatory consequences. A self-certification regime that does not substantively alter an advertiser’s liability offers a limited deterrent effect. It merely introduces procedural complexity without addressing the underlying enforcement inadequacies. 

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) under the supervision of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, published the draft guidelines, which aims to protect consumers from potential counterfeiting in the fast-growing digital shopping industry.

The guidelines require E-commerce entities to ensure that counterfeit, fraudulent or illegal products are not listed or sold or offered for sale by the seller on the e-commerce platform. In this regard, the guidelines require disclosure of relevant information on the reporting and returning mechanism for counterfeit products which may require extended timelines beyond the generic return timelines stated above.

The guidelines shed light on detailed Anti-Counterfeiting measuresincluding well-defined mechanism for rights owners to report instances of violation of their intellectual property rights, which shall include the provision of requisite information pertaining to their rights, and any other evidence of the alleged violation; well-defined mechanism on the platform for consumers to report instances of receipt of counterfeit products to the e-commerce entities; well-defined process to investigate the counterfeiting allegation, and provide a preliminary response to the rights owner within the timeline as set out under applicable law; list of appropriate action(s) that may be taken by the e-commerce entity, at its sole discretion, in accordance with applicable law; and  an appeals process, by which an aggrieved party may communicate with the e-commerce entity on any reservations it may have on actions taken on the platform on the basis of the rights owners report on counterfeiting.

The guidelines further state that where an E-commerce entity receives a report/complaint from a Rights Owner, it shall ensure that the same is immediately forwarded to the concerned seller as well as authorities on its platform within 48 hours and the evidence of such communication is shared with the rights owner. Further, upon receiving a complaint from a consumer regarding the authenticity of a listed product, it shall forward the same to the seller within 48 hours and the evidence of such communication shall be shared with the consumer.

The seller shall be provided with an opportunity to respond to the complaint after which the e-commerce entity may take appropriate actions at its sole discretion. However, any e-commerce entity/ seller which explicitly or implicitly vouches for or guarantees the authenticity of the goods or services sold by it, shall bear appropriate liability in any action related to the authenticity of such good or service. These measures underscore the increasing responsibility placed on e-commerce platforms to combat counterfeiting and ensure greater consumer protection in the digital marketplace.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP