Weekly Indian IP Law Digest Oct 25 to 31 2026 | Its IP Time

Indian Courts

Monday, 26 October 2026

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr., Madras HC

What Happened

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited filed a statutory appeal before the Madras High Court challenging an administrative order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks on August 22, 2025. The appellant had opposed trademark application number 1730955 filed by Nice Neotech Medical Systems Pvt Ltd for the word mark NICE in Class 10 covering medical apparatus and infant care devices. Dr. Reddy’s asserted continuous commercial use dating back to 1995 for its registered coined mark NISE in Class 5 for pharmaceutical formulations containing nimesulide. The appellant contended that the respondent’s mark was visually and phonetically identical, creating an unacceptable likelihood of confusion and dilution of its established medicinal brand. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the opposition, finding that the marks operated across distinct product classes and trade channels.

Issue

Does the adoption of the mark NICE for specialized medical equipment create deceptive similarity under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 with the registered pharmaceutical mark NISE when the goods belong to different classifications and consumer categories?

Ratio and Result

Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Registrar disallowing the opposition. The Court held that while the rival marks share phonetic similarity, the differences in the nature, character, purpose of goods, class of purchasers, and modes of purchase weigh conclusively against any likelihood of confusion. The Court ruled that the appellant failed to establish the requirements of Section 11(2) or prove dishonest adoption and passing off under Section 11(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Read full analysis: Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks Case Analysis.

Tuesday, 27 October 2026

M/S Kumar Equipments (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trademark & Anr., Delhi HC

What Happened

M/S Kumar Equipments (India) Pvt. Ltd. preferred a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court challenging an administrative review order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on May 18, 2026. The appellant had applied for registration of the composite mark KEI-KUMAR EQUIPMENT INDIA under application number 5038776 in Class 11 for electric cooking appliances. KEI Industries Limited filed an opposition against the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the two-month statutory limit prescribed by Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 after service of the counter statement. The Registrar initially treated the opposition as abandoned under Rule 45(2) and issued a registration certificate to the appellant. KEI Industries subsequently filed a review petition under Section 127(c) alleging non-receipt of the counter statement due to counsel negligence, which the Registrar allowed by recalling the abandonment order.

Issue

Can the Registrar of Trade Marks exercise review powers under Section 127(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to recall a mandatory statutory deemed abandonment of opposition under Rule 45(2) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 on grounds of advocate negligence?

Ratio and Result

Justice Tejas Karia allowed the appeal, set aside the review order, and restored both the abandonment order and the appellant’s trademark registration certificate. The Court held that the evidentiary timelines in Rule 45(1) are mandatory, and non-compliance leads to automatic deemed abandonment under Rule 45(2) by operation of law. The Court ruled that administrative review under Section 127(c) cannot be exercised to bypass statutory timelines or condone counsel default, leaving an aggrieved opponent to seek post-registration rectification under Section 57. Read full analysis: M/S Kumar Equipments (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trademark & Anr. Case Analysis.

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor, Delhi HC

What Happened

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court against Veepro Lights and Decor alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff asserted exclusive rights in its well-known registered mark WIPRO across Classes 9 and 11, tracing continuous commercial use to 1977 and registrations to 1991 for consumer electricals and lighting products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufactured and sold LED luminaires and illumination apparatus under the deceptively similar mark VEEPRO and operated the commercial domain veeproled.com. The defendant was served with summons on March 28, 2025, but failed to enter an appearance or file a written statement within the statutory 120-day outer period, resulting in its defense being closed and the defendant being placed ex-parte.

Issue

Can the Commercial Court dispense with recording ex-parte oral evidence and pass a final decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure when an infringing defendant fails to file a written statement?

Ratio and Result

Justice Vikas Mahajan decreed the commercial suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark VEEPRO or domain veeproled.com. The Court held that when an infringing party defaults in filing a written statement and remains ex-parte, the commercial court has authority to bypass oral evidence and pronounce final judgment based on uncontroverted pleadings and the Local Commissioner report. The Court also awarded four lakh rupees in damages and actual legal costs to the plaintiff. Read full analysis: Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor Case Analysis.

Wednesday, 28 October 2026

M/S The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/S Supremo India Private Limited, SC

What Happened

M/S The Supreme Industries Limited and M/S Supremo India Private Limited engaged in concurrent intellectual property litigation across multiple judicial forums concerning the trademark SUPREME and associated brand logos. The petitioner asserted registered statutory exclusivity under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, while the respondent claimed common law protection under Section 34 as a prior user. Concurrent trademark infringement suits were actively pending before the District Judge (Commercial) in Indore and the Delhi High Court, creating an imminent risk of conflicting judicial decrees regarding the identical commercial brand. Supreme Industries filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Supreme Court seeking consolidation of the cross-jurisdictional proceedings.

Issue

Should parallel commercial trademark infringement suits pending across different state jurisdictions be transferred and consolidated under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to avoid conflicting decrees and redundant evidence?

Ratio and Result

The Supreme Court bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the transfer petition, directing the transfer of both the Indore commercial suit and the Delhi High Court suit to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for consolidated trial. The Court held that centralized administration of parallel intellectual property actions eliminates the hazard of conflicting decrees and prevents tactical races to judgment by competing litigants. The Court ruled that consolidating the proceedings before a single forum preserves judicial economy and enables an evidence-based determination of rights. Read full analysis: M/S The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/S Supremo India Private Limited Case Analysis.

Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited, Bombay HC

What Happened

Glaxo Group Limited filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Bombay High Court seeking cancellation and removal of the registered trademark LEFOXIN BIOX in Class 5 owned by Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited. Glaxo asserted prior statutory rights in its trademark LANOXIN in Class 5 dating back to 1956 for digoxin, an essential cardiac failure formulation. Shreya Life Sciences resisted the petition, arguing that Glaxo was not a person aggrieved under Section 57 because the respondent’s levofloxacin formulation was manufactured solely for export to CIS countries with zero domestic commercial sales in India. The respondent also argued that the marks were visually distinct and that the suffix OXIN was common to the pharmaceutical trade.

Issue

Does manufacturing medicinal products in India exclusively for export constitute trademark use under Section 56(1), and does a senior mark owner qualify as a person aggrieved entitled to seek rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the rectification petition and directed the Registrar to expunge the mark LEFOXIN BIOX from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that under Section 56(1) of the Trade Marks Act, applying a mark to goods in India for export constitutes domestic trade mark use and falls within the regulatory scope of Indian law. The Court ruled that the locus standi of a senior registered proprietor under Section 57 must be construed broadly to maintain register purity, finding that the phonetic resemblance between LEFOXIN and LANOXIN created an impermissible risk of confusion. Read full analysis: Glaxo Group Limited v. Shreya Life Sciences Private Limited Case Analysis.

Mr. Sunit Shah Proprietor of M/s. Shah Namkeen v. M/s. Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd., Delhi HC

What Happened

Sunit Shah, proprietor of Shah Namkeen, instituted a commercial trademark infringement and passing off suit before the Delhi High Court against Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff asserted continuous commercial use dating back to 2003 and copyright registration for the artistic label SHAH HOT MIX in relation to savory snacks and namkeens. The dispute arose when Jabsons Foods introduced a competing line of packaged savory snacks under the mark HOT MIX. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and marketing savory products under the mark HOT MIX.

Issue

Does a commercial enterprise possessing prior continuous adoption and copyright registration over an essential label feature hold superior common law protection under Section 34 to restrain an encroaching competitor under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Ratio and Result

Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an interim injunction restraining Jabsons Foods from using the mark HOT MIX on namkeen and snack preparations. The Court held that statutory trademark rights remain subordinated to the common law rights of a prior user under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that HOT MIX formed an essential and distinctive feature of the plaintiff’s established brand identity, concluding that the defendant’s subsequent adoption for identical namkeen goods established a prima facie case of passing off. Read full analysis: Mr. Sunit Shah Proprietor of M/s. Shah Namkeen v. M/s. Jabsons Foods Pvt. Ltd. Case Analysis.

Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors., Delhi HC

What Happened

Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd filed a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation regarding the mark UTRACON and domain utraconindia.com in Class 37 for post-tensioning and structural engineering services. The plaintiff claimed that after the expiration of a 10-year License Agreement on March 31, 2021, Defendant No. 1 and affiliated non-signatory entities continued using the brand name. Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, asserting that the brand rights originated from a composite 2012 Sale of Shares Agreement containing an arbitration clause. The plaintiff opposed the reference, arguing that statutory trademark infringement suits are actions in rem triable exclusively by civil courts.

Issue

Are trademark infringement and passing off claims arising from the post-expiration breach of a commercial licensing agreement arbitrable rights in personam referable to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the Section 8 application and referred the parties and affiliated corporate entities to arbitration. The Court held that when trademark disputes originate from determinable contractual agreements, the claims constitute arbitrable rights in personam rather than actions in rem. The Court ruled that the arbitral reference binds non-signatory sister concerns operating as a single economic unit, preventing litigants from bypassing agreed dispute resolution clauses through statutory IP pleadings. Read full analysis: Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v. Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited & Ors. Case Analysis.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Gemini Distilleries Ltd., Madras HC

What Happened

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court in 2004 challenging decisions of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The IPAB had allowed trademark registration applications filed by Gemini Distilleries Ltd. in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages and Zip Industries Private Limited in Class 26. The petitioner contended that the registrations encroached upon its well-known corporate name and trademark rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The litigation remained pending for more than two decades before the High Court. During the final hearing, counsel for the respondents informed the Division Bench that the respondents had formally abandoned the contested trademark applications and had no intention of pursuing registration.

Issue

Do multi-decadal writ petitions challenging trademark registration orders survive for judicial adjudication when the respondent applicants formally abandon the contested trademark applications?

Ratio and Result

The Division Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice B. Karthikeyan dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous. The Court held that the formal abandonment of the contested trademark applications eliminated the factual and legal basis of the controversy. The Court ruled that continuing protracted trademark litigation is unwarranted when the commercial interest in the contested marks has ceased, rendering any decision purely academic. Read full analysis: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Gemini Distilleries Ltd. Case Analysis.

Thursday, 29 October 2026

MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr., Delhi HC

What Happened

MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court claiming prior user rights since 2000 over the trademark BROWN SUGAR in Classes 29 and 30 for restaurant services and food items. Following receipt of the defendants’ written statement, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking leave to introduce additional historical invoices, cash books, and tax certificates from 2003 to 2011. The plaintiff argued that the records were misplaced in an internal company store room and discovered during a festive cleaning exercise. The defendants opposed the application, asserting that the plaintiff was attempting to introduce documents in piecemeal tranches after seeing the defense.

Issue

Does internal corporate record misplacement or discovery of archives during office cleaning satisfy the standard of reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC to introduce belated prior user evidence in a commercial suit?

Ratio and Result

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the application, holding that administrative oversights and internal office misplacement do not constitute reasonable cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that litigants in commercial suits must front-load all documentary evidence in their power and control at the time of instituting the plaint. The Court ruled that allowing piecemeal filings after the defense is disclosed defeats the expedited statutory case management timelines established by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Read full analysis: MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd & Anr. Case Analysis.

Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. Medifame Biotech, Madras HC

What Happened

Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Madras High Court against Medifame Biotech alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation in packaging trade dress. The plaintiff owned the registered trademark ARK PAIN RELIEF SPRAY under Registration No. 2654084 in Class 5 for topical pain relief preparations. Apex alleged that Medifame marketed a competing formulation under the mark AR-KD while copying the identical color combination, artistic layout, and packaging get-up of its product. During the pendency of interlocutory proceedings, the parties executed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated September 26, 2026 to resolve the entire dispute out of court.

Issue

Can a commercial intellectual property suit alleging trademark and copyright infringement be decreed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on a verified Joint Memorandum of Compromise?

Ratio and Result

Justice P.B. Balaji decreed the commercial suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The Court held that the compromise terms were lawful and aligned with public safety standards for medicinal branding while resolving commercial exposure without an extended trial. All pending interlocutory applications were closed without costs, binding the parties to their agreed transition and packaging undertakings. Read full analysis: Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v. Medifame Biotech Case Analysis.

Friday, 30 October 2026

M/S Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, Madras HC

What Happened

M/S Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Madras High Court against Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg, operating in Thanjavur. The applicant asserted continuous commercial adoption of the brand SANGEETHA since 1985, holding registered word and device marks across Classes 42 and 43, copyright registrations, and an annual turnover exceeding 450 crore rupees. The applicant sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendant from operating under the name HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG RESTAURANT. The defendant opposed the application, arguing lack of deceptive similarity due to geographic separation between Chennai and Thanjavur, distinct device elements, and minor spelling variations.

Issue

Does the commercial adoption of a phonetically near-identical restaurant name in an adjacent district constitute trademark infringement under Section 29 and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 despite minor spelling modifications and device variations?

Ratio and Result

Justice P.B. Balaji granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark HOTEL SANGETHAS PURE VEG RESTAURANT or any deceptively similar name. The Court held that SANGEETHA is the prominent and essential phonetic feature of the applicant’s registered trademarks, and adding descriptive terms or altering spelling does not dispel consumer confusion. The Court ruled that statutory protection under Section 29 extends statewide and nationwide, rejecting the contention that geographic separation between cities permits unauthorized commercial appropriation. Read full analysis: M/S Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Hotel Sangethas Pure Veg Case Analysis.

Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Madras HC

What Happened

Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. filed a statutory patent appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Madras High Court challenging an administrative refusal order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in 2018. The Patent Office had rejected Patent Application No. 5430/CHENP/2007 on grounds of lack of inventive step and non-patentability. The appellant sought to set aside the rejection and obtain a patent grant. The international filing date of the underlying PCT application was August 18, 2006, meaning the maximum statutory twenty-year term under Section 53 of the Patents Act expired on August 18, 2026 while the appeal remained pending.

Issue

Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the patentability of a rejected patent application under Section 117A when the statutory twenty-year term prescribed by Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970 has expired?

Ratio and Result

Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the appeal as infructuous without examining the technical merits of the invention. The Court held that under Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, patent protection is capped at twenty years from the international filing date, after which the invention enters the public domain. The Court ruled that because the statutory life of the patent had lapsed, granting a patent post-expiry is legally impossible, rendering the appellate challenge entirely moot. Read full analysis: Ospedale San Raffaele S.r.l. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs Case Analysis.

GI & Indian IP Registry News

Office of CGPDTM Announces New Search Fee Reduction and Calculation Features in ePCT Version 4.18

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks issued a public announcement informing stakeholders of new operational features introduced in ePCT version 4.18 for PCT international applications filed through the Indian Patent Office as Receiving Office (RO/IN) and designating India as International Searching Authority (ISA/IN). Under the updated system, the search fee reduction entitlement option has been integrated into the International Search module with specific options for applicants qualifying as startups, small entities, or educational institutions.

Natural person applicants receive the search fee reduction automatically in the fee calculation without manual selection. For qualifying institutional applicants, selecting the relevant category requires uploading supporting verification documents. The system now automatically calculates and displays the combined international filing fee and search fee under the fees section, providing immediate digital fee calculation sheets upon submission to enhance procedural convenience for patent applicants.

Telangana’s GI-Tagged Tandur Tur Dal Makes Debut Export Shipment to Australia

In a significant commercial milestone for Telangana agriculture, the central government flagged off the first commercial export shipment of Geographical Indication tagged Tandur Tur Dal to Australia. Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal announced the dispatch of a 2.5 metric ton consignment, highlighting the growing international footprint of India’s certified geographical products.

Tandur Tur Dal, cultivated in the rainfed black soil regions of Vikarabad district in Telangana, received its GI tag in 2022 for its high protein content, distinct taste, and superior cooking quality. The successful export to the Australian market provides direct financial benefits to local farming communities and establishes a reliable global supply chain for regional pulse varieties.

Kashmir Records Sharp Fourfold Increase in GI Quality Testing for Artisanal Handicrafts

The Pashmina Testing and Quality Certification Centre at the Craft Development Institute in Srinagar recorded a substantial rise in quality testing and certification for Geographical Indication products during the current financial year. Official data from the Directorate of Handicrafts and Handloom Kashmir revealed that daily testing capacity expanded from 40 tests in 2024 to approximately 170 tests in 2026.

The testing surge covers iconic Kashmiri products, including Kashmir Pashmina, Kani shawls, and Sozni embroidered textiles. Upgraded laboratory infrastructure and modern testing protocols have helped eliminate counterfeit machine-made imitations from the market, securing statutory brand protection and consumer trust for authentic valley craftspersons.

Centre Highlights Ladakh’s GI-Tagged Seabuckthorn as Golden Treasure for Global Markets

Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal spotlighted Ladakh’s GI-tagged seabuckthorn, describing the indigenous berry as a golden treasure of India’s natural heritage with immense commercial potential. Known locally as Ladakh Gold, the superfruit grows wild in the high-altitude cold desert of the Himalayas and contains exceptionally high concentrations of Vitamin C, surpassing lemons tenfold.

The fruit received its Geographical Indication certification in 2023, protecting its distinct regional character and biochemical profile across domestic and export markets. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade is actively collaborating with local cooperatives to develop value-added commercial processing, including organic juices, dietary supplements, and natural cosmetics, to enhance rural livelihoods across the Union Territory.

Prime Minister Praises Export of Kalaburagi’s GI-Tagged Tur Dal to the Maldives

Prime Minister Narendra Modi commended the successful export of Karnataka’s GI-tagged Kalaburagi Tur Dal to the Maldives during his monthly radio address Mann Ki Baat. Facilitated by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), a one-metric-ton consignment of the certified pulse was shipped via sea transport to Male, marking a key milestone for regional farmers.

Kalaburagi Tur Dal, recognized for its rich calcium and potassium content derived from the fertile black soil of the Bhima river basin, earned participating Farmer Producer Organisations 82 rupees per kilogram compared to the domestic rate of 60 rupees. The Prime Minister cited the export as an example of the Vocal for Local initiative transforming local agricultural products into globally competitive commodities.

Also Read: Weekly Indian IP Law Digest: October 11 to 17, 2026 | Its IP Time

International IP Updates

US Appeals Court Overturns Sutter Home Win in ‘Bandit’ Wine Trademark Dispute

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a summary judgment decision that favored Sutter Home Winery in a trademark dispute with liquor manufacturer Roar Spirits over its El Bandido Yankee tequila brand. Sutter Home had opposed federal trademark registration for El Bandido Yankee, arguing that the mark was confusingly similar to its registered Bandit brand used on boxed wine products.

The appellate court remanded the matter to the federal district court, holding that a reasonable factfinder could determine that the marks differ in sight, sound, and commercial meaning. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred by giving insufficient weight to evidence showing years of concurrent market coexistence between the products without instances of actual consumer confusion.

Sanofi Reaches Agreement in Principle to Settle Long-Running US Lantus Antitrust Litigation

French pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi reached an agreement in principle to resolve a major antitrust class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts concerning its diabetes medication Lantus. The lawsuit, initiated by drug wholesalers and direct purchasers, alleged that Sanofi engaged in anti-competitive patent listing practices in the FDA Orange Book covering its Lantus SoloStar injection pen to block generic competition.

The plaintiffs contended that improper patent assertions delayed the commercial entry of cheaper biosimilar insulin glargine alternatives, artificially maintaining higher prices across the American healthcare market. The preliminary settlement agreement averts a protracted federal jury trial, with final financial terms and formal documentation subject to court approval.

Neil Young Files Ten Million Dollar Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Trump Committee

Canadian musician Neil Young filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court against the Trump 47 Committee seeking ten million dollars in statutory damages. The complaint alleges that the political organization repeatedly played Young’s 1989 rock anthem Rockin’ in the Free World at campaign rallies without obtaining an appropriate public performance license.

Young had previously filed and voluntarily dismissed a copyright suit against Donald Trump’s campaign in 2020 following licensing commitments. The renewed lawsuit contends that the campaign breached established terms by playing the composition at an October campaign rally in Ohio, seeking injunctive relief to bar future unauthorized musical performances.

Elvis Presley Rights Holders File Copyright Lawsuit Against Anthropic Over AI Model Training

Authentic Brands Group and associated music publishing entities managing the catalog of Elvis Presley filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against artificial intelligence developer Anthropic in federal court. The complaint alleges that Anthropic ingested 274 copyrighted musical works, including classics such as Can’t Help Falling in Love and All Shook Up, to train its Claude language models without authorization or payment.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of up to 150,000 dollars per registered work, amounting to more than 41 million dollars in total claims. The lawsuit alleges that the AI system reproduces and generates unauthorized derivative lyrics, marking one of the first direct legal actions brought by a legacy artist estate against a major artificial intelligence developer.