An Outlook on Famous Trademark Infringement Cases in India

Famous trademark infringement cases in india - Intellect Vidhya

The implementation of the TRIPS agreement resulted in significant changes in how governments enforced intellectual property rights. As a result, business owners and entrepreneurs began to place a premium on their brand names and trademarks. The increase in the number of applications for trademark registration coincided with an increase in the number of infringement cases, in which tiny enterprises attempted to replicate and profit off the goodwill and repute of previously existing trademarks.

This eventually led to higher courts taking infringement cases and setting precedent for future cases to follow. This article also provides a summary of famous trademark infringement cases in India that have served as a model for similar lawsuits.

Table of Contents

Famous Trademark Infringement Cases in India

Here are some examples of trademark infringement cases from India that illustrate the nuances of the relevant legislation.

1. Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr: One of the earliest cases of Cybersquatting in India

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr - Trademark infringement case India - Intellect Vidhya

This case is one of the most famous trademark infringement cases in India. In addition to trademark infringement, it is often asked that the case of Yahoo! Inc. V. Akash Arora belongs to which dispute outside trademark infringement? The correct response is ‘Cybersquatting’; this is one of the earliest known instances of cybersquatting.

Factual Background

Yahoo INC., the plaintiff, was the owner of the trademark “Yahoo” and the domain name “,” both of which were widely recognized brands in the minds of consumers around the world providing internet services. In addition Yahoo was a registered company since 1995, having registered trademarks in various countries except India.

Akash Arora, the defendant in the particular case simultaneously started using the domain name ‘’ for the similar kind of services India. Yahoo Inc. sought an interim injunction to prevent from using the domain name ‘’ or any name similar to its own.

Decision of the Court

The court determined that Akash Arora was liable for infringing the “Yahoo” trademark and restricted him on the basis that he was using a deceptively similar domain name and delivering services similar to those of Yahoo Inc., which constituted cybersquatting. This ruling was based on the premise that a company’s goodwill resides primarily in its name and trademark, and especially so in the instance of Yahoo Inc. Yahoo Inc. was awarded the passing-off remedy.

2. Amazon v. Happy Belly Bakes: Trademark Rights of small business owners against the Giant ones

Amazon v. Happy Belly Bakes - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

Shisham Hinduja founded Happy Belly Bakes in 2008, a women-owned business that sells baked items like cakes, brownies, cookies etc. It has owned the trademark for the name ‘Happy Belly’ since 2016, (before it was known as Regalar and it switched to Happy Belly Bakes in 2010).

Happy Belly Bakes used the trademark since its inception in 2008. It sued Amazon for selling bakery items, snacks, and dairy under the same brand name. 

In 2016, the bakery began receiving calls asking if their products were available on Amazon. However, the website of the e-commerce giant revealed that Happy Belly was Amazon’s own brand for selling bakery products. Tootsie LLC filed the trademark application on behalf of the e-commerce firm, arguing that while Happy Belly Bakes only operated in Bengaluru, Amazon sold the products worldwide.

Decision of the Court 

The court held that Amazon had infringed the trademark of Happy Belly Bakes. The court gave verdict in favour of Happy Belly Bakes against Amazon. It took four years for Happy Belly to get justice but at the end they were able to protect their trademark against the tech giant – Amazon. While the small businesses struggle to get justice against giant enterprises, this case of Happy Belly Bakes showed that the infringement laws are for all and are common.

3. The Coca-Cola company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd: Assignment of Trademarks

The Coca-Cola company v. Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

Coca-Cola v. Bisleri case study is amongst the major trademark infringement cases in India. The plaintiff is the largest soft drink brand in the world, with a presence in 200 countries, whereas the defendant is a very well-known Indian brand recognized for its bottled water. In September 1993, the defendant sold the plaintiff the rights to the soft drink MAAZA. In March 2008, the plaintiff submitted a trademark application for the name “MAAZA” in Turkey. In September 2008, the defendant sent the plaintiff a legal notice revoking the licensing agreement and announcing its desire to begin using the trademark in India. Both directly and indirectly, the defendant was involved in the manufacture, sale, and exportation of MAAZA-branded items.

Decision of the Court

A temporary injunction was issued against the defendant. The Honorable Court decided that the plaintiff had both a prima facie case and a favorable balance of conveniences. The rejection of the trademark was deemed invalid, and the plaintiff was given complete trademark rights for the soft drink MAAZA. It was determined that the defendants were responsible for trademark infringement.

4. Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan: Dilution of Well-known trade marks

Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

In this case, an undergarments shop used the term ‘Benz’ in the title of the brand, as well as a logo that looked suspiciously similar to the logo created and used by the car company. The famous three-star ring of Mercedes Benz which is very popular across the globe was used by the defendant for selling undergarments. The defendant was using a three-pointed human being in a ring as his logo. The plaintiff got to know this and filed the case against the defendant.

Decision of the Court

It was held by the court that this is a clear infringement of the trademark as the three-star ring of the Mercedes is a well-known mark and is widely known across the world for the cars. Therefore, the defendant was refrained from using this mark by an injunction. The court in this case had acknowledged the trademark’s international reputation, remarking that almost no one would ever fail to associate the word “Benz” with the car. As a result, no one can claim that he was unaware of the use of the mark “Benz” which is popularly known to have in relation to automobiles.

5. Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.: Rule of Dominant Feature of a Trademark

Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. - Intellect Vidhya Solutions

In this specific case, the meaning and fundamental nature of a trademark were reaffirmed; namely, that a trademark is a one-of-a-kind identifier and distinguishing feature for both the customer and the company in question.

Factual Background

Starbucks registered their word mark ‘STARBUCKS’ and corresponding logo as a trademark in India in 2001. The Defendants established their business in 2015 under the name ‘Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.’ Sardarbuksh’s logo was a turban commander’s face with wavy lines on the sides surrounded by a circular black band. Through a letter of demand, the Plaintiff requested that the Defendants change the logo in 2017. In response, the Defendant simply changed the colour scheme to black and yellow and resumed operations. The Defendant began operations under the same name in May 2018. The Defendant and Plaintiff provide comparable goods and services. The plaintiff filed a suit against Sardarbuksh in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as a result of the preceding events. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for trademark infringement by using a deceptively similar mark.

Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court relied on the National Sewing Thread Co. decision. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros Ltd, which stated that in order to determine whether a trademark was deceptively similar, the court had to put itself in the shoes of the customers.

The Delhi High Court concluded, using the aforementioned case that a man of ordinary intelligence might be confused, and thus it is deceptively similar.

6. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) V. Neeraj Food products: Attempt to free ride on the goodwill of well-known trademarks using deceptively similar marks

Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Ltd.) V. Neeraj Food products - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Cadbury India Limited, filed a lawsuit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant’s deceptively identical mark and goods/products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sold chocolate with the trademark ‘JAMES BOND’ that was deceptively similar to their trademark ‘Cadbury GEMS’ with similar packaging and was inspired by Cadbury’s famous fictional character & registered copyright ‘GEMS BOND’ from the plaintiff’s advertising campaign in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant is trying to create confusion in the mind of consumer so as to free ride on the goodwill of the former.

Decision of the Court 

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision in the favour of the plaintiff. In addition to the relief of a permanent and mandatory injunction granted to the Plaintiff, the court awarded the Plaintiff damages in the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs.

7. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals: Trademark should be read in its entirety

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals - Intellect Vidhya

 Factual Background

The appellant (Cadila Healthcare) and the defendant (Cadila Pharmaceuticals) were two pharmaceutical companies that introduced medicine for the treatment of cerebral malaria. The appellant launched the medicine in style and name of ‘Falcitab’ and the respondent launched it in the name ‘Falcigo’. Cadila Healthcare filed the lawsuit after discovering that Cadila Pharmaceutical is using the mark “FALCITAB” which is similar to their mark “FALCIGO”; and that Cadila Pharmaceutical registered the mark for a similar medicine. In this lawsuit, Cadila Healthcare sought an injunction prohibiting Cadila Pharmaceutical from using a mark that is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion amongst the consumers.

Decision of the Court

The Hon. Supreme Court held that even though the drug is to be prescribed by the medical practitioners and sold directly to hospitals, the possibility of the confusion between the two cannot be disregarded.

The Supreme Court also held that there are certain principles that need to be followed in the case of deciding the mark as a deceptively similar. They are as follows:

  • To check the nature of the marks which includes word marks composite marks etc.
  • To check ideological and phonetic similarity
  • To check the similarity of nature, performance, and character of applicants
  • To identify the class of consumers etc.

8. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S Prius Auto Industries Ltd. – Trans-border reputation of Trademarks 

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Toyota alleged that the defendants, Prius Car Industries, a supplier of auto parts and accessories, infringed upon its registered ‘Toyota,’ ‘Toyota Innova,’ ‘Toyota Device,’ and ‘Prius’ Trade Marks. The plaintiff petitioned the Trade Mark Registry for cancellation of the defendants’ registered mark, and filed suit on the grounds that the defendant was using their “well-known mark” without their permission, resulting in an unfair benefit to the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill. On the other hand, The Plaintiff did not register the “Prius” trademark in India, and its Prius automobile was not introduced in India until 2009, much after the Defendant registered the “PRIUS” trademark in India in 2002.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court determined that “likelihood of confusion” and the differentiating powers of a man of average intelligence would be a more appropriate standard for proving a passing-off activity, which can only be proven by evidence, which the Appellants failed to offer. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki-trademark petition was dismissed after the Supreme Court ruled that trademark rights are territorial and not universal and that actual proof is required to establish a company’s reputation and goodwill in a territory.

9. Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. – no one can claim an exclusive right or monopoly over an entire class of goods

Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The respondents, Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers, had been using the mark for milk and related products registered under class 29 since 1985. Appellant Nandhini Deluxe is a restaurant chain in Karnataka that used the mark in 1989. The Appellant has applied for registration of the said mark in class 29 for meat, fish, poultry, meat extracts, preserves, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, eggs, milk and milk products, edible oils and fats, salad dressings, and so on. The registrar approved the registration of the mark ‘Nandhini’ as distinct from the existing mark. The IPAB and the High Court of Karnataka both found the marks ‘Nandini’ and ‘Nandhini’ to be deceptively similar, with the only difference being the letter ‘H’ between the two marks.

Decision of Court

The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which determined that the marks are not deceptively similar after a thorough examination of both. The court noted that there is only a phonetic similarity between the two marks Nandini/Nandhini. Aside from that, the logos for both marks are distinct. The phrase ‘Deluxe’ was used by the restaurant and is followed by the words ‘the real spice of life,’ whereas the mark Nandini has no suffixes or prefixes. The Supreme Court concluded that no one can claim an exclusive right or monopoly over an entire class of goods, especially when the trademark is not used with respect to all of the goods in that class. Finally, the appellant ‘Nandhini Deluxe’ was granted permission to use the mark after removing milk and milk products from their class description.

10. Amritdhara Pharmacy V. Satya Deo Gupta: Monopoly over the generic terms can’t be allowed & the concept of honest concurrent use.

Amritdhara Pharmacy V. Satya Deo Gupta - Intellect Vidhya

Factual Background

The respondent, Satya Deo Gupta, submitted an application to register the name “Lakshmandhara”, which has been in the business of selling and preparing medicinal items since 1923. “Amritdhara” the appellant company Amritdhara Pharmacy, objected the registration of the term Lakshamandhara on the grounds that it is likely to mislead and confuse clients due to the appellant’s trademark Amritdhara, which has been in the same line of business since 1901. In response, the defendant filed a counter-affidavit claiming concurrent usage on the basis that they had been using the mark since 1923.

Decision of the Courts

The Registrar of Trademarks determined that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are sufficiently similar to cause confusion. The Allahabad High Court on appeal, granted the respondent’s appeal, allowing registration of the mark “Lakshmandhara” while denying the appellant’s appeal and stating that the marks are dissimilar. The court also ruled that the words “Amrit” and “Dhara” cannot be monopolized because they are part of the common language. The High Court discovered insufficient grounds to deny the Lakshmandhara trademark registration. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court on appeal.

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision that Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara are comparable marks. The court relied on the comparison of marks test and stated that the question of comparing two marks should be viewed from the perspective of a man with average intelligence and defective recall.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »