During the last PWS session, Megha Hurkat, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Whether classification of training technologies as “non-expressive use” dilutes the value of creative labour?” The session examined how the classification of AI training as a non-expressive use raises serious concerns about the gradual erosion of the value attached to creative labour. The discussion highlighted that by framing the use of copyrighted works in AI training is purely technical or functional, this approach risks overlooking the reality that AI systems derive their intelligence, stylistic capacities, and commercial utility from vast volumes of human-authored expression. Participants noted that such characterization sidelines the economic and cultural contribution of creators whose works form the backbone of these technologies. The session concluded by highlighting the asymmetry this framework creates, while creative works continue to enjoy robust protection when reused by humans, their large-scale extraction and consumption by machines is often treated as legally invisible, potentially weakening long-standing principles of authorship, attribution, and fair compensation.

A Legal Issues Seminar was conducted by Sonal Kumari, Associate, on the topic “Whether a Registered Proprietor Can Restrain Bona Fide Use of One’s Own Name?”

This session analysed whether a registered trademark proprietor can restrain the bona fide use of a person’s own name under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and examined the statutory interplay between Section 35, which protects bona fide own-name use, and Section 29, which governs trademark infringement.

The discussion highlighted that Section 35 does not provide automatic immunity. The session then examined instances where courts have diverged in their analytical approaches, alternating between the dominant feature test and whole-mark comparison. Ultimately, the session concluded that bona fide use is intention-centric, with courts closely scrutinizing timing of adoption, prior knowledge, proximity of business, and conduct suggestive of goodwill appropriation when determining whether such use can be restrained.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

During the last PWS session, Manish Kumar, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Should India introduce a mandatory ‘One Nation, One Licence, One Payment (ONOL–OP)’ regime for use of copyrighted works in AI training?” The session examined whether mandatory blanket licensing can strike the right balance between safeguarding copyright holders’ exclusive rights and preserving the freedom necessary for AI development. Participants also discussed whether the ONOL–OP framework meaningfully resolves existing legal ambiguities or risks introducing excessive state control through centralised regulation. The session further assessed whether the proposed regime would strengthen India’s creative economy by ensuring sustainable compensation for creators, or whether it could undermine India’s competitiveness in the global AI race. The session concluded with a consensus that the move might be too soon, given the core issue is yet to be decided by the Courts in India and advocated adopting alternative approaches already in place in some jurisdictions. 

A Legal Issues Seminar was conducted by Meghana Killampalli, Associate, on the topic “Whether A Second Appeal Is Maintainable Against Orders Of The Trade Marks Registry?”

The session examined the appellate framework under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in conjunction with Sections 100 and 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to determine whether a Letters Patent Appeal or second appeal lies against orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in appeals from the Trade Marks Registry. Through an analysis of legislative history and judicial precedents, the discussion highlighted the conflicting judicial views on the issue. The seminar explored questions of legislative intent, the effect of the omission of a second appellate provision in the 1999 Act, and the relevance of the “trappings of a court” test in applying the bar under Section 100A CPC. The session concluded that the maintainability of a second appeal against Trade Marks Registry orders continues to be a contested and evolving area of trademark procedural law.

The Presentation can be accessed here.

During the last PWS session, Vanshika Gupta, Associate, hosted a discussion on “Whether film bodies can consolidate control over theatrical markets and industry economics?”. The session examined the recent industry-wide shifts towards standardised revenue-sharing models, mandated theatrical release windows, coordinated screen-allocation practices, and collective approaches to IP enforcement. The Attorneys deliberated on whether such coordinated economic frameworks can legitimately operate as industry self-regulation, or whether they risk concentrating market power and limiting exhibitor autonomy, producer flexibility, and consumer choice. The session concluded with a discussion on the need to balance industry stability with competitive neutrality.