Virendra Pratap Singh Rathod, 4th year, BALLB, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
--Ray Bradbury (from the Coda to Fahrenheit 451)

I. The Early Conceptions ¬

Prohibitions, suppressions, and inexpressible concepts likely emerged in human societies at a very early stage: almost certainly coinciding with the advent of verbal communication (Briggs and Burke).

Indeed, owing to the limited availability of historical records, our knowledge of all instances is not exhaustive; however, the origins can likely be traced back to ancient Greece, where one of the most notable examples can be located in Socrates. In 399 BC, he was executed by poison for allegedly “corrupting the youth” and for “impiety,” a fate he voluntarily accepted rather than permit his ideas to be silenced (Gosztonyi). The writings of Plato, a student of Socrates, provide great insights into the latter’s eminent trial, wherein the former romanticizes the conduct of the latter during said trial and subsequent to the ruling (Berkowitz).

Thereafter, the proliferation of writings took on an increasing prevalence through the Romans and into the Dark Ages, rendering the “written word” a potentially lethal vehicle for disseminating information, for it facilitated the extensive spread of narratives considered hazardous, heretical, or undesirable (Keane). Nonetheless, at the time, the duration required for scribes to replicate a book was substantial (often spanning years), until the transformative contributions of Johannes Gutenberg.

It is his Printing Press that emerged as a pivotal technological advancement during the mid-15th century, capable of generating a book in approximately 1/100th of the time previously required. Concurrently, it markedly aided the circulation of ideas associated with the Protestant Reformation, which both the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchies endeavoured to suppress vigorously (Goldstein).

Until the end of the eighteenth century, in Europe and its colonies, the censor of information was defined by practices such as “the Inquisition” and the incineration of literature, coupled with an aspiration for comprehensive oversight and regulation of the printing of books (Briggs and Burke).

Conversely, the French Revolution, along with the emergence of American democratic principles, catalysed a series of revolutions and the development of civil rights frameworks throughout Western Europe (later spreading to its dominions). This phenomenon was concomitant with an augmented accessibility to knowledge, transformations within educational teaching, and the advancement of literacy, leading to a transient decline in censorship by the end of the nineteenth century (Goldstein).

However, the two World Wars disrupted the status quo and significantly impeded the realization of the newfound expressionist values. The operant totalitarianists of the time, the Nazis under Hitler (up until the downfall of the regime), as well as the Austro-Hungarians, and the Soviets, were pivotal in the systematic suppression of dissenting viewpoints. Concurrently, the advent of radio and television also began to face stringent censorship and superintendence therein (Petley).

Following the Second World War, contact between the Chinese and the Soviets grew, so did the seepage of ideology; the surveillance and “internet redactionism” in China today, as we shall soon find, is quite unparalleled in its scope and consequence, with perhaps a Russian heart (He).

II. The Beginnings

The Chinese Communist Party (with Soviet influence) has recognized from the outset of its rule that shaping individual perceptions and public sentiment is pivotal to its triumph and the preservation of its authority. Consequently, the Chinese media has typically been burdened with harsh and exacting constraints, encompassing the quelling of published material deemed “political” (Goldsmith and Wu).

The same approach has been extended to internet use, albeit in a transmuted format. In China, the accessibility of the Internet for public utilization came about in 1995. Similar to global trends, the user base experienced significant exponential growth throughout the 2000s (Petley).

However, even before the notable increase in figures, the Communist Party set up a new “Cyber Police” in 1998 to undertake the “conventional” responsibilities of limiting any dialogue between users (concerning any viewpoints) on the Internet by employing a diverse array of content control methodologies (Roberts). It is within this context that the initial signs of the State’s subsequently evolved censorship mechanisms can be identified: concerning domestic content, the strategies varied from coercion to prohibition, while with regard to foreign ones, the standard procedure involved obstructing access for Chinese users (Fedasiuk).

From the year 2000 onward, legal regulation began to adopt a more concentrated approach, when a decree was passed by the legislature mandating Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to register specific domain names and IP addresses (Zhu Rongji).

Since the very next year, all ISPs operating within the jurisdiction of China are required to “consensually” endorse the “Public Pledge on Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry,” wherein they commit to abstain from “generating, publishing, or spreading harmful information which could threaten national security and disrupt social order” (He). The primary objective is, undoubtedly, socio-political i.e. to inhibit the circulation of ideas within the digital world that may incite dissent in the tangible world.

In 2005, the censoring was further strengthened with the implementation of the “Provisions on News Information Services,” which in Article 19, comprehensively delineates the categories of content “deemed impermissible online within the People’s Republic of China” (MacKinnon).

Illustrative examples include: “transgressions against the principles articulated in the Chinese Constitution, threats to national safety and unity, detriment to the dignity or interests of the country, dissemination of falsehoods, disruption of social order, or destabilization of social equilibrium,” inter alia. Consequently, these definitions are sufficiently vague to afford the government significant discretion regarding the individuals they may wish to penalize for their conduct on the Web (Roberts).

Startlingly enough, in the year 2013, Chinese media disclosed the existence of two million individuals employed by the State and assigned to the monitoring of online material (Hunt and Xu), thereby indicating that this responsibility extends beyond just ISPs and cybersecurity law enforcement, percolating into the veins of its very citizens. A similarly envisaged scenario was once the inspiration for Big Brother and the State of Oceania in George Orwell’s seminal 1984, where even one’s own thoughts are subject to the State’s gaze and the biggest dangers lurk not amidst bureaucracy, but within fellow compatriots. The imagined dystopia is now a banal reality for the everyday Chinese.

III. The Modern Reconstruction of Surveillance

The aforementioned methods, tools, and agents of censorship, traditionally employed by the Communist Party, as pervasive as they may be, are undergoing a morphing; a morphing whose seeds were first planted in the nascent years of the Internet’s arrival to the Chinese mainland.

The term “the Golden Shield” represents a domestic apparatus (commencing in the late 1990s) instituted by the “Ministry of Public Security,” to restrict access to international websites. During its conceptualization, while the work of the Cyber Police was already underway, there remained available an avenue for evasion through the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN). The possibility is currently no longer in existence (Fedasiuk).

Nevertheless, said apparatus is marked by ambiguity and unpredictability: the precise reasons why certain content bypasses the filter remain unclear, as do the factors that result in the availability of specific material in certain regions while causing it to be inaccessible in others, and the rationale behind the concealment of particular content from certain demographic groups (Griffiths). Consequently, the surveillance architecture is regarded by some as reminiscent of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a conceptual prison where inmates are unaware of when they are under observation by guards, or if they are even being watched to begin with (Gosztonyi).

The consequence of the same is that, presently, any companies with a presence in China devise their “block-lists” through a combination of informed conjecture and empirical experimentation; they base their decisions on their understanding of politically sensitive topics, insights garnered during discussions with Chinese officials, and feedback received from authorities regarding the display of contentious search results (Griffiths). Furthermore, the blocking and filtering processes are perpetually being enhanced through input from human operatives and artificial intelligence alike (Roberts).

The 2020 annual report published by Freedom House (a global non-profit research organization) regarding internet freedom indicated that China’s censorship technology continues to be the most sophisticated and widespread (Freedom House).

It appears that the intention is to no longer merely observe online behaviours and impose censorship when deemed necessary; rather, the State is now desirous of creating an integrated system that facilitates seamless social profiling, enabling things like “Big Data analytics, thermal imaging, viewing of communal areas, tracking of personal contacts, and the implementation of facial recognition software,” among other capabilities (Gosztonyi).

This viewpoint precisely communicates the metamorphosis from earlier conventional threats impacting journalistic autonomy to a period culminating in a “modern China” that possesses the capacity for a nearly complete scrutiny of its citizens; in all facets, aspects, times, and environments.

The Dragon is wide awake now, it no longer rests in silence, nor is it wispy or tenuous. The Dragon is gilded; it bears no intentions of slumber. Whether it will falter is a question that remains a lingering enigma, as humanity moves further into the twenty-first century amidst growing authoritarianism in places near and far.

It is only fitting we remember:

“A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze.”
-----Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

Akshat Kumar, 1st year, BALLB, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Tags/Keywords: Intellectual Property, Digital Era, Digital Piracy, Copyright Infringement, Patent Trolls, Artificial Intelligence, Non-Fungible Tokens, Blockchain Technology, IP Enforcement, Innovation and Creativity, Intellectual Property Challenges, Digital Rights Management, IP Regulations, Technology and Law, IP Policy and Frameworks.

"The internet has made copying and distributing intellectual property as easy as breathing, but that doesn't mean it's right. We need to find a balance between protecting creators and allowing access to information in the digital age." - Larry Lessig

Introduction

Technology is ever-evolving, and as it continues to advance, it benefits society in numerous ways, including innovation, accessibility, and efficiency. However, this rapid technological evolution also brings several challenges with it. As intellectual property (hereinafter IP) rights are very beneficial in fostering innovation, creativity, and economic growth by providing creators legal protection and exclusive rights, it becomes very important to keep pace with technological advancements and evolving societal needs. Through this article, we will explore different challenges posed by the internet and new technologies to the framework of intellectual property rights.

Digital Piracy and Copyright Infringement

Digital piracy significantly impacts intellectual property rights and is one of the major challenges that must be tackled. In simple terms, digital piracy refers to the unauthorised use, reproduction, distribution, or sharing of copyrighted digital content—such as software, music, movies, books, games, or other media—without the permission of the copyright owner. Digital Piracy can be done by using peer-to-peer networks to share copyrighted files illegally and by streaming copyrighted content on unauthorised websites or platforms. Digital pirates often try to bypass or remove security measures, such as activation codes that are present in software or digital content. This act of distributing the actual work of creators without their permission impacts the creators, such as musicians, filmmakers, authors, and software developers, not only economically but also mentally and discourages them. The global nature of the internet complicates the jurisdiction issues as the jurisdictional law varies from country to country, and infringers of intellectual property rights can be of one country and can operate in another country, which makes it difficult to control them. Properly coordinated efforts between nations are crucial to combating global piracy networks. Instead of using time-consuming and expensive traditional methods like litigation, this can be accomplished through international agreements and treaties that facilitate information sharing and the extradition of digital pirates. Legal reforms need to be implemented globally to tackle this issue. This issue can also be addressed through public awareness and the implementation of technological solutions.

Digital Right Management is an essential technology used to control and manage access to copyrighted material. It enables creators to give and prohibit access to their content for distribution and modification to people as they will.

Impact of Patent Trolls on Intellectual Property

Patent trolls, or Non-Practicing Entities (hereinafter NPEs), pose significant issues. NPEs are the firms that purchase patents only to file lawsuits—not for real patent infringements but rather for the possible financial gain from out-of-court settlements. Startups and small enterprises that lack the resources to fight lengthy legal fights are frequently the targets of NPEs. There are several studies that collectively support the argument that patent troll litigation significantly harms innovation. For example, after comparing venture capital investment to patent lawsuits across several businesses and geographical areas, Catherine Tucker's analysis discovered a 14% drop in venture funding due to patent troll lawsuits, totalling $22 billion over five years. It was also found in research done by Harvard and the University of Texas that firms reduce their research and development budgets after being targeted by patent trolls.

Impact of AI on Intellectual Property

Artificial intelligence (hereinafter AI) has both positive and negative impacts on IP. It can be used in various ways to enforce intellectual property rights; if accurate and adequate training data is provided, AI can help identify infringing content and reduce human workloads. AI's Image recognition capabilities can be used to better identify design infringement leveraging existing databases. AI can assist trademark analysts by processing large datasets, facilitating better monitoring of online content. However, AI also holds various challenges for intellectual property the main challenge it poses is the large amount of relevant training data needed for the effective use of AI in IP enforcement. AI system works on the resource which is given to it. The quantity, quality, and currency of training data needed to train AI systems is a recurring worry. It takes a lot of time and needs to be updated frequently. Due to this limitation of AI, it should currently only be an essential tool for flagging content to a human analyst for verification rather than for enforcing IPR independently

Impact of NFTs on Intellectual Property

NFT, which stands for Non-Fungible Tokens, is a new concept and an exciting way to represent ownership of digital assets. It is a blockchain-based token system for assets like a piece of art, digital content, or video. NFTs are gaining popularity and have a significant impact on intellectual property rights, so it becomes very important for creators, IP holders, and policymakers to understand the implications and opportunities that NFT holds for intellectual property. By creating an NFT, a creator can secure their IP rights as it provides a variable record of ownership and authenticity. Details recorded in metadata on the blockchain, including information about the creator, ownership history, and copyright details, increase its credibility. By allowing creators to set permissions and restrictions on how their work is used and shared, NFT enables them to maintain control over their intellectual property and facilitate digital rights management. NFTs allow creators to sell their work directly to consumers without intermediaries, enabling them to set prices and receive royalties from subsequent sales. The transparent nature of blockchain technology provides evidence of ownership in IP disputes, helping to protect the rights of creators. As the NFT market grows, there is a pressing need for regulatory frameworks that address IP rights, copyright laws, and consumer protection to ensure that creators are adequately protected while fostering innovation.

Approaches to tackle these challenges

A comprehensive approach is needed to address these challenges. Some steps, such as modernising IP laws to cover digital challenges like online piracy, AI-generated content, and NFTs, can help. Laws should also adapt to new forms of infringement to better protect digital creations. As discussed earlier, globalisation has made it very important for countries to encourage international treaties and data-sharing to address cross-border IP infringements and streamline enforcement. Mere raising public awareness about IP rights and the legal consequences of infringement through education campaigns to promote respect for creators' work can go in the long run. Apart from these steps, AI to detect infringements, blockchains to improve IP tracking and ownership verification, and IP reforms to tackle patent trolling and abusive lawsuits cumulatively can be very effective.

Conclusion

In the digital age, the landscape of intellectual property (IP) presents certain challenges but at the same time opens doors to a lucrative opportunity. For as long as technology has existed, human creativity has existed, and nothing else can put such pressure on the existing IP legal frameworks. Issues like digital piracy, patent trolling and impacts of Blockchain and NFTs present the current need for adaptive and intelligent legal structures to safeguard creators while encouraging originality.

Across multiple industries across the globe, digital piracy serves as one of the most prominent rises, endangering the commercial outlook of creative business by making it easier to amend and distribute products under copyright infringement. The spectacular advancement and availability of the internet only complicates its enforcement putting the need for stronger international collaboration and support. Similarly, startup businesses are exposed to patent trolls with legal loopholes and extensive litigation that only harm and restrict innovation. This is a development that needs legislative frameworks that discourage such behaviors while at the same time protecting rightful inventors from such malice.

While AIs do pose a great threat, there are a number of ways they can aid with IP law enforcement which may include fraud detection and content monitoring, they all revolve around the proper quality of training data and the human eye over the technology. This only further emphasizes the need for business intelligence.

Ankit Samar, 2nd year, BALLB, Chanakya National Law University, Patna

The world has been digitized, and in this digital world, social media is everywhere, even in remote locations where earlier we had only thought of having a digital connection. These things have changed the way we see reality in today's world. Now, big companies or firms engage with people through social platforms like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, etc. These platforms give immense opportunities to connect with people and make their presence be felt. Companies engage people through viral hashtags, meme campaigns, or influencer partnerships to stay relevant in this competitive market.

Trademarks serve as an identity for the products they sell. They represent the quality and standard of the product. These advancements also bring new challenges with them as it becomes difficult for the traditional trademark law to protect their registered trademarks. People use these trademarks in memes and hashtags to make viral content, which also casts questions of infringement on them. Trademark protects brand identity by building recognition, fostering trust, and providing legal recourse in case of infringements or counterfeiters.

Social media provides vulnerability to trademarks because brands widen their reach to people and being the fastest amplifier, it circulates the content rapidly, which exposes them to infringement. Rapid sharing and global reach come into the hands of the masses for which we don't have centralized guidelines thus complicating the enforcement of trademark rights. The creativity of people often blurs the fine line between fair use and trademark infringement. The use of trademarks in the creation of memes for humor and parody can be protected under fair use but when it is used to promote something without permission then it crosse into infringement

Risk of dilution is also involved when the trademark is used in viral hashtags or memes thereby reducing its impact or weakening its distinctiveness. Hashtags are essential promotional tools for both brands and consumers in the contemporary digital world. Hashtags are employed in marketing promotion (e.g., #hashtag-campaigns for promotions like #ShareACoke by Coca-Cola), brand development (e.g., Nike’s #JustDoIt ), and brand building through creating brand conversation. They also monitor affection and word of mouth or any content published with a hashtag. On the other hand, consumers use hashtags for the purpose of sharing their opinions, using brands’ campaigns, finding different content and even generating new trends. Registered trademarks are once in a while threatened by consumer-generated promotional hashtags thus becoming a test to the brand managers to regain full control of its internationally recognized mark.

The ‘Chewy Vuitton case is a good of the various problems of intellectual property in marketing. Pet toy-maker Haute Diggity Dog was selling a luxury-inspired poodle chew toy called Chewy Vuiton. Although the main issue of the case was parody consumer terms and designs are used as objects and sources of conflict.

If a hashtag like #ChewyVuiton had gained popularity, the arguments for trademark dilution would only have become even tougher to prove. While the court disposed of Haute Diggity Dog in its favor while endorsing the parody defense, the case makes for an interesting reminder of the need for clear social media guidelines, especially in brands. Hashtags can actually be sought to be registered as a trademark when they meet certain parameters among them being registration under the Commerce Act. For example, hashtags that are relevant to specific campaigns, for instance, #SmileWithLays can be protected. Nevertheless, there will always be non-listing or non-credential hashtags, such as #FoodLovers.

Some difficulties that can be attributed to trademarking hashtags are that popular hashtags in particular might lose their specificity in the long run. It crosses national jurisdictions, making it hard to implement. Courts strictly adhere to fair use doctrines to free non-commercial uses of a hashtag. Acquire a trademark for specific campaign-promoted hashtags. You can employ the help of Hootsuite or Mention and monitor how the hashtag is being used and whether it is being used improperly. Interact with Consumers and Build positive relations and content around your hashtag when a consumer misuses your hashtag, do it politely.

Internet trademarks are the primary styles with humor and parody common areas of content internet usage. It may change the logo, or slogans and images that depict cultural shifts or make fun of a particular brand. Although the majority of this content is not commercial in nature, it can offer an unclear or biased view of a brand or link it to concepts that are unwelcome to the trademark holder.

Meanwhile, the tagline, “Netflix and Chill” which came out of the new Netspeak, means relaxed and, in some ways more intimate activities while watching Netflix. It spread across social media platforms and the Internet for non-Netflix-driven purposes including events branding and merchandise; the incident is not acceptable which makes Netflix send cease and desist letters. But Netflix used only moderate pressure on pirates that shared content through such websites, as it understood the likely angry responses. This shows how trademarks can change the perception of the public domain and how brands can be hard placed when trying to establish ownership over the use of the brand while ensuring that consumer goodwill is maintained.

Trademark law, which allows the limited use of trademarks for commentary, criticism, or parody, is called fair use. Courts consider certain criteria such as the purpose (as long as it is transformative, it comes under fair use) the commercial use, and in the impact of the work in the market. Thus, as long as the meme can be classified as transformative and non-commercial, brands are left with limited options unless the reputation and market value of a trademark is damaged.

Influencers are at the forefront of digital marketing, leveraging their large followings to amplify brand awareness and boost sales. Their authenticity and relatability make them valuable partners for brands. However, the decentralized nature of influencer marketing introduces risks, particularly around trademark violations. Influencers may unknowingly misuse trademarks by showcasing counterfeit goods, misrepresenting brand affiliations, or using logos and slogans without authorization. Such actions can confuse consumers, dilute trademarks, and lead to legal disputes, damaging both the brand and the influencer’s reputation.

One of them is an imitation high-end handbag, which also imitates the logos of Chanel and Louis Vuitton. The posts that were intended to bring the attention to cheaper alternatives, led to the reprimand of the influencer, and the vendor replica was sued. The event exposed the need for influencers to authenticate products and for firms to brief their partners on intellectual property laws. Trademark infringement claims can be brought against any influencer regardless of the damage done to their reputation if they failed to know it.

The legitimate use of a trademark and the importance of avoiding consumer confusion through prohibitive improper use of a mark are recognized guidelines for brands. Implement clear contractual terms setting trademark guidelines, rights and responsibilities rules for abuse, and course adherence to advertising codes; monitor influencers’ posts, to enforce compliance when needed. While brands may protect their trademarks, the recipe for success entails accurate and transparent marketing strategies allowing them to immerse relationships based on trust with influencers and their followers. Successful cooperation in the condition of high thematic and influencer marketing is possible only through effective cooperation between creativity and legal framework.

As will be seen below, social media has brought about a new shift in the enforcement of trademarks with its attendant benefits and drawbacks. This kind of content sharing escalated with the help of social media, and since social media is known to have an international presence, brands have to protect themselves against unauthorized use, fake products, and trademark blurring. There is a need to be active in monitoring such activities that infringe on the laws, report and seek legal redress, and engage the management of social media platforms. Thus, these means of protection will become more significant as technology advances, and, for example, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools will be crucial for enforcing trademarks. These AI-powered systems pose threats that can easily be red-flagged, which makes brands respond faster and more effectively. As a step forward, there is a need for the application of advanced technology such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and blockchain technology to enhance the enforcement process and provide a strong barrier against infringement. Brands abiding with these trends and keeping a vigilant helm can protect their trademarks and work successfully in the digital age.

Harshika Sinha, 1st year, BALLB, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

How do lawyers sort through a mountainous pile of documents in record time? Or how could they ensure accuracy in review of contracts and in legal research without missing even one minute and crucial detail? Could artificial intelligence make these processes faster, more efficient, and more reliable? It's already happening. Artificial Intelligence is slowly changing, but surely transforming the way legal professionals complete their work. Besides the automation of mundane and repetitive chores, Artificial Intelligence changes long-held values on how justice is administered. It faces issues of fairness and transparency in determining the decision made. This then represents the evolution of Artificial Intelligence in law from being a development of technology but is a mammoth cultural change and ethical adjustment. With this invention, we then have to focus on its weakness and ensure the protection of the judgment of humankind while facilitating a fair way of access to justice. In this blog, we’ll dive into how Artificial Intelligence is transforming areas of legal profession, its drawbacks and how it will impact the future of law.

Artificial Intelligence is today's emerging trend which has transformed several industries into a newer version, even the legal profession. Artificial Intelligence changed the way the legal professional thinks of his job. The first advantage of implementing Artificial Intelligence for the legal profession involves the level of efficiency it brings. Earlier, jobs were done in hours or days but nowadays, it takes minutes. It does more than just saving time. It gives accuracy as well to the results. Furthermore, Artificial Intelligence does not get tired nor will get distracted the way we humans do, which clearly shows that possibilities of missing essential information are dramatically minimized. Above and beyond this, it might go through and render analysis on voluminous data, something an even the busiest lawyer could not attempt to do in speed of the clock. Taking into consideration, maybe one of the painstakingly most unattractive and mundane types of legal duties, i.e., contract analysis. Whether it’s reviewing a simple agreement or a complex merger contract, lawyers spend countless hours making sure everything is in order. Artificial Intelligence tools, like Natural Language Processing (NLP) software, are now stepping in to make this process far more efficient. Artificial Intelligence can quickly scan through contracts, identify key clauses highlight potential risks and even suggest changes. This saves lawyer a ton of time and reduces the risk of human error. It has been reported that a lot of cases are piling up in the Supreme Court, and justice is delayed. With the help of Artificial Intelligence, cases can be resolved in a short span of time. Not only in Contract analysis but in each and every field of law, such as, legal research, case analysis, legal advice, etc.

It has proved to be highly efficient in carrying out a host of legal tasks but at the same time also interfered with the traditional role, employment, and ethics within the legal profession. The legal profession calls for expertise, analytical reasoning, critical thinking, and evaluation which were never exposed to automation. AI-powered tools have already begun to automate tasks, such as, legal research, contract review, and even case predictions. AI devises its own case laws which might not actually exist is one of the biggest drawbacks of using Artificial Intelligence for browsing case laws for backing their arguments in courts. Such errors and incorrect information can have serious consequences in the legal matters. They may even come up with their own legal interpretation or conclusions which go contrary to the prevailing legal norms. This may therefore give them wrong counsel or actions.

One major issue in the integration of Artificial Intelligence into the legal profession is privacy or, to be precise, client confidentiality. Confidentiality is the bedrock of the legal profession. Law firms are strictly bound by codes of ethics and legal regulations to keep it confidential and, as such, maintain privacy and confidentiality in every case. AI-tools often operate in cloud-based environments or rely on third-party providers, so there is always a risk of data leaks, cyber-attacks, or unauthorized access. Legal profession thrives on confidentiality and trust, and any technology that threatens those values will face resistance, hence, if the technology seems to destroy these bases, it should be opposed. With a secure systems focus, strict policies over data sharing, and informing the legal staff about the ethical applications of Artificial Intelligence, the firm would thus strike a right balance between a proper application of Artificial Intelligence and trust from clients over their affairs.

The indirect effect of Artificial Intelligence in the legal profession is the potential loss of lawyers' cognitive and thinking abilities. The more contract review, research, and even case predictions are automated, the higher is the potential risk that lawyers will become potentially less engaged in critical thinking. Besides the challenges mentioned above, there are still several other challenges that have to be addressed. Not all lawyers are comfortable using Artificial Intelligence. Some are afraid that if, they rely too much on technology, and Artificial Intelligence will somehow take away their jobs, so they will be out of work in the future. However, with the enormous amount of potential of Artificial Intelligence for making legal work more efficient, accurate, and accessible, one cannot forget the fact that technology is only as good as the people that support it. Legal professionals can balance their work between exploiting technology and human elements by responsibly making judicious use of Artificial Intelligence.

Effective legal practice at its core is emotionally rooted. Artificial Intelligence is very good when it comes to automating, but it does not have emotional intelligence. Lawyers are not only dealing with the laws but also with the clients that may include comforting or negotiating settlement.

By prioritizing secure platforms, enforcing strict data-sharing policies, and educating legal teams on ethical Artificial Intelligence use, firms can strike a balance between leveraging AI’s benefits and upholding client trust. One of the unintended consequences of AI’s growing role in the legal profession is the potential decline in cognitive and thinking abilities among lawyers. When tasks like contract review, research and even case predictions are automated, there is a potential risk that lawyers may become potentially less engaged in critical thinking. Apart from the above mentioned, there are still challenges to overcome. Not all lawyers are fully on board with using Artificial Intelligence. Some of them refrain from relying too heavily on technology and fear that Artificial Intelligence might take away their job, subsequently leading to unemployment. While Artificial Intelligence offers incredible potential to improve efficiency, accuracy and accessibility in legal work, it is important to remember that technology is only as effective as the people using it. By integrating Artificial Intelligence thoughtfully and responsibly, legal professionals can strike a balance between leveraging technology and preserving the human elements of their work.

However advanced Artificial Intelligence is, it still cannot empathize, intuit emotions, and build trust. For example, in family law, the clients would always run to their lawyers, not only to be helped on the law side but emotionally too. An AI tool might be able to draft a flawless divorce agreement, but it cannot provide the reassurance or understanding that a human lawyer can offer. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence into the legal profession has thrown up a huge question that would Artificial Intelligence take over the roles of paralegals, associates, junior lawyers or even seasoned lawyers? So, the answer is, Artificial Intelligence is not there to replace lawyers, but is here to augment their capabilities and give them better tools to do their jobs more effectively.

Entry-level legal roles are the ones that, traditionally, served as a training ground for young lawyers. So, what happens if the foundational trainings are outsourced to machine? How will the young lawyers develop critical thinking ability? The answer lies in balance. Artificial Intelligence is not going to be an enemy to lawyers, but change is inevitable. Look at and rethink time-honoured workflows, look for chances for young lawyers to develop new skills in communications with clients, advocacy in courtrooms, strategic decision making-a time when, rather than disappearance, jobs would evolve. Lawyers, who embrace AI as a tool and focus on developing uniquely human skills, will surely thrive in a profession that is becoming increasingly tech-driven.

Ultimately, the future of law lies in collaboration between humans and machines were, humanity working in partnership with machines, with traditions, with innovation. Artificial Intelligence is not a replacement for human lawyers. It is only through embracing such a partnership that the legal profession can responsibly take on the challenge and, in an authentic manner aligned to its foundational principles of trust, confidentiality, and empathy, navigate the challenges put forth by Artificial Intelligence. As Artificial Intelligence evolves, the legal industry is called upon to not only seize the opportunity put forward by Artificial Intelligence but also address the risks involved. The future of law will be in the proper use of Artificial Intelligence responsibly so that while work becomes smarter and faster, trust and confidentiality remain uncompromised at the heart of legal practice, finding the perfect balance between innovation and responsibility.

Even as the legal landscape is reshaped by Artificial Intelligence, the heart of legal practice remains human.

3rd year, BALLB, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

INTRODUCTION

The Jio Hotstar domain saga has once again ignited the debate around domain cybersquatting. For those unaware, a Delhi-based app developer acquired the domain name “Jio Hotstar”, based on the speculated merger between two major streaming giants- Jio Cinema and Hotstar in late 2024. The anonymous person, through the website, displayed a message requesting Reliance, the parent company of Jio Cinema to sponsor and assist his education in exchange for as the domain name he had acquired, which the latter may be interested in considering their merger. The officials at Reliance, declining the request, said that they would initiate a legal battle against the person for trademark infringement. This incident had the internet divided, while a majority of people supported the web-developer, a significant number of people called this cybersquatting- an extortion, outright infringement of Intellectual Property and illegal. This discourse has reiterated the need for a robust legal framework to deal with this issue.

CYBERSQUATTING IN INDIA

The term cybersquatting refers to the practice where an individual acquires the domain name identical to the trademark of a famous company, brand, or individual with the intention of later selling it to the individual or corporation for a higher price, or to use the goodwill of such trademark for garnering profits through such domain. With the emergence and growth of commerce and trade on the internet, protecting website trademark has become an important issue to address. Simply put, an act of obtaining fraudulent registration with an intent to sell the domain name to the lawful owner of the name at premium is called “cybersquatting”.

In India, Cybersquatting is not defined under any act, however, it is currently protected under The Trade Marks Act of 1999, owing to the absence of any dedicated legislation for the said act. The Apex Court in the case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd. highlighted this lack of framework. However, the jurisprudence for protection of domain as a trademark has been largely drawn from the various courts’ rulings on the matter. The essentials of Cybersquatting can be made out in Indian context with the help of such rulings.

A registration of domain can be said to have constituted cybersquatting if and when there is a bad faith registration made only to earn illegally; a confusing similarity in domain names; mala fide intent to make profit belonging to someone else; and a lack of legitimate interest. Thus, any such act which qualifies as cybersquatting is punishable under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

GLOBAL SCENARIO

Cybersquatting has become a global menace with the increase in dependency on online presence for various brands. As per World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation (WIPO), more than 50,000 cases of cybersquatting were registered by 2020.

As a measure to tackle cybersquatting, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) has been formulated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The UDPR policy was created as a framework to handle the majority of domain-based disputes and cybersquatting issues, which can be settled by arbitration, court litigation, or agreement. The policy lays out legal guidelines and clauses about abusive domain name registration between the registrant and a third party. However, India does not adhere to UDPR and rather uses “.in Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)” which sets out the terms and conditions to resolve a dispute between the Registrant and the Complainant, arising out of the registration and use of a ".in" Internet Domain Name.

CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The current legal framework is not provided with adequate safeguards to tackle the issues of cybersquatting. Although various countries have introduced separate laws to deal with the issue of cybersquatting. For instance, the United States has a dedicated legislation Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to deal with the issues of cybersquatting, The Act not only punishes the offender but also mandates to transfer the domain name to the rightful owner, something which is not explicitly present in Indian laws, thereby causing ambiguity and possible infringement of rights.

The Trademark Act, 1999 also does not adequately provide adequate safeguards for the protection of domain names. The Trademark Act is the primary legislation for the infringement of trademark and domain infringement because once an entity has registered a domain, it asserts a right over that domain and no one has the right to use one’s registered trademark without prior permission. If the impugned trademark owner believes, that a particular domain is completely similar to their registered domain, it will create a likelihood of confusion among the general public, then one can object to that domain under Sec. 11 of the Trademarks Act. For instance, in Yahoo Inc v. Akash Arora, the plaintiff Yahoo had a well-known trademark over Yahoo and registered domain “www.yahoo.com”. The defendant Akash Arora started providing similar services under the domain “www.yahooindia.com”. The court held that since they are offering similar services, the domain will create a likelihood of confusion since they are phonetically, and visually similar, the defendant is liable for the domain infringement.

However, since the Trade Marks Act is limited to a specific area, it might not provide sufficient domain name protection. Nevertheless, the statute disregards the issue of cybersquatting and domain name disputes. Cybersquatting domains are not sufficiently protected because they may be regarded as trademarks based on their usage and brand recognition. In India, the courts have punished the cybersquatters, where it was evident that the cybersquatters intended to exploit the goodwill of an individual. For instance, in the case Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Others, where the defendant registered the domain “www.arunjaitley.com” named after the politician Arun Jaitley. The Court held that since the defendant is trying to deal in bad faith by asking Mr. Arun Jaitley to pay huge money for purchasing the domain from the auction constitutes unfair trade means and therefore awarded punitive damages to discourage the trafficking of the domain names in the future.

A person registers a domain priorly just with the anticipation that the domain will be bought by an individual or a company for a particular purpose and the person can sell the domain later on and earn a huge amount of money. However, the intent of the person is completely malicious whose sole purpose is to earn money without offering any services through the domain. This puts huge pressure on the companies to purchase the domain at a higher cost, so as to reduce the likelihood of confusion among the general public and to protect the goodwill of the company. A cap needs to be placed to prevent malicious people from buying the unregistered domain that has a possibility of being registered in the very near future for a particular purpose. This also acts as a constraint for Ease of Doing Business where the companies are not able to start their businesses due to the non-availability of certain domains.

India also has Information Technology, 2000 for matters concerning cybercrimes and are thereto dealt with. However, the statute only stipulates that the investigative agencies have the same authority as that enshrined in the BNSS. Given the particulars of cybercrimes especially cybersquatting which can be done from any part of the world, these capabilities are typically insufficient. Investigating cybercrimes presents several challenges, such as the matter of jurisdiction, geographical determinacy, privacy violations throughout the investigation, and a lack of suitable investigating machinery. Nearly every investigative agency in the globe is concerned about these challenges.

CONCLUSION

The dispute around the Jio Hotstar domain is a classic case of cybersquatting, wherein a person speculated a future merger between two large streaming sites and bought a domain that is a trademark of those organisations, to earn money out of it.

However, the conversation around these hints at a larger question- the need for a dedicated legislation or legal framework for cybersquatting, which poses a major threat owing to loss of revenue, reputation and market disruption. Indubitably, it may be apprehended that the problem of cybersquatting for increase exponentially with the trend of e-commerce and the online presence of all major brands. A dedicated framework would diminish ambiguity and grey areas in law and make it a faster and more efficient procedure while improving the ease of business in India, something the government has put a spotlight on for years.

The present laws in India, though deal with cybersquatting through the Trade Mark Act, which may be insufficient as they fail to define, explain and list out the elements of the act. Separate legislation would ensure deterrence and a separate punishment along with a transparent procedure for dealing with such cyber-crimes, adding India to the list of the developed countries that have separate legislation to deal with cybersquatting.

4th year, BALLB, MPLC Aurangabad

Introduction

The biometric data includes physical, physiological or behavioural traits of an individual (fingerprint identification feature, iris recognition characteristic and facial scan etc.) The rise of biometric data brings obvious benefits to safety and ease, but also serious implications for privacy too. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) recognised the Right of Privacy as Fundamental Right in the Justice K. S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India 2017, Supreme Court of India directed that a robust legislation on data protection be enacted to address the interests and privacy of digital age individual. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (DPDP) is the first such law introduced in India; it marks an important step toward instilling personal data protection legislation, including in relation to privacy in biometric data.

The advantages are obvious: one cannot dispute greater security and ease of accessibility; however, the risks to privacy involved with collecting, storing, and processing biometric data are indeed sounds. This Act puts some challenges in place for effectively regulating the biometric data with a balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding privacy. This article shall critically look at various issues surrounding biometric data in the purview of the DPDP Act, in relation to the adequacy of its provisions and regulatory gap.

Biometric Data: Sensitivity and Risks

Biometric data fall under the category of sensitive personal data, which is not only unique but also immutable. This means, in the event that there is a data breach, unlike passwords or PINs, the data cannot be changed. Misuse of such data would result in identity theft, surveillance, and even profiling without consent. Section 4 of the DPDP Act points out the significance of protection of sensitive personal data but without explicit definition or differentiation of biometric data from other forms of sensitive data.

Challenges in Regulating Biometric Data Under the DPDP Act

The Act declares certain types of data as sensitive personal data but defines neither specifically what constitutes biometric data within the range of that category nor addresses the ambiguity over whether voiceprints or gait patterns fall within this category. The current vagueness in its definition is quite alarming since it involves a unique, personal information constituent element that, per se, calls for proper protection. It would become imperative to have the DPDP Act brought in line with certain international standards like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enacted by the European Union categorically stipulates that biometric data constitute a form of sensitive personal data (Article 4(14)).

It is further aggravated by informed consent under Section 7of the Act that requires personal data processing only by express consent. Meaningful consent for biometric data is extremely complex and inoperable in practice since most individuals do not understand what exactly their biometric data means and are being used for. This challenge is exacerbated by much greater levels in public environments where facial recognition technology is becoming increasingly used without proper disclosure or comprehension. There is a big power imbalance between data fiduciaries and individuals that increases dangers of misused data and removes autonomy and agency from individuals over decisions about whether to share data.

Uniqueness and immutability are also one of the things that make biometric data an attractive cybercrime target. For instance, data fiduciaries theoretically only need to have "appropriate security measures" according to Section 8 of the Act and there is no a technical specification or other detailed guidelines but, it could be this that some firms do not adopt the same standard. This difference can lead to increased chances of breach as the Act does not offer any deterrent penalties for not being able to use a safe technological solution. The lack of such norms can cause biometric

data to be accessible to malicious use or theft through the minimum protections that only the fiduciaries may provide.

Another big concern is that there is not much regulation of the data processor under the DPDP Act. While the Act pays so much attention to the data fiduciary, the related processors, such as third-party vendors who often handle biometric data, are hardly regulated. Many companies send biometric data processing to other places, which leads to a lack of rules. This means data processors can avoid responsibility when data is lost or mishandled. It is important to have clear rules for processors to make sure data is protected at every stage.

Another challenge is that biometric data cannot be changed. While the passwords that a user may have compromised can be changed, once the biometric data has been compromised, it stays the same. Section 13 may become a problem because ensuring that all biometric data is completely removed from all systems is a hard and time-consuming task. There can be copies of the biometric data on several platforms. Such a situation would make it extra challenging to heed requests for its deletion.

Case Studies Highlighting Regulatory Gaps

The Aadhaar system, that is India's biggest biometric database, has been claimed to have been involved in many data leaks. These breaches disclosed the personal information of millions of users, questioning if the present security measures are indeed sufficient. The DPDP Act spells out the parameters of security, however, the law does not provide for how to fix system vulnerabilities at a wider level. Not only a lack of necessary periodic audits and of the full breach notification requirement but also are the obstacles to put such systems at-risk.

One instance of this is the facial recognition that has been put up in several Indian cities by the law enforcement agencies for the purpose of tracking down law-breakers, which is another case of regulatory challenges. Most people do this and these systems thus violate the two important principles of the DPDP Act: the principles of purpose limitation and consent. For example, in situations where law enforcement uses facial recognition technologies to identify the offenders at public events, it thus results in mass surveillance, which infringes on people's right to privacy, and a particular set of regulations is therefore required for such systems. The lack of transparency and accountability by the authorities mentions the reason why all the events are recorded and necessary permits are issued. This explanation is why one needs to have explicit laws on biometric surveillance systems.

Global Best Practices in Biometric Data Regulation

Data protection systems on a global scale offer a host of valuable experiences in dealing with the policy problems standing in the way of biometric data use. A case in point is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union that has made quite a name for itself by deliberately grouping biometric data into a unique category of personal data which is to be kept with a maximum level of protection. Consequently, the GDPR sets down peculiar conditions for the handling of such data, for example, explicit consent or compelling public interest, as a complementary measure against possible misuse.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of the United States is one of such cases where strong transparency principles are laid down. It makes it duty of businesses to let the consumers know about the biometric data collection and use and also lets them opt out if they want. The control is given to the user, and in this way CCPA works more efficiently and strengthens the responsibility for the sensitive data.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Act must contain a clear definition of biometric data to cover physical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics. This step would eliminate the possibility for the ambiguity of the relevant data protections. Technical instructions akin to those of SEBI with respect to biometric data safety is to be developed that would include encryption standards, inspection cycles, and a timeframe for a violation report. Consents of multilayer nature for the collection of biometric data should be made mandatory by informing the people through the options of opt-out and multi-layered disclosures.

The regulatory framework should contain stringent requirements for the obligations of data processors, including the responsibility to report in the case of breaches and the mishandling of biometric data. The government has to insert clauses related to the utilization of biometric data in public surveillance systems separately and to reconcile the compatibility of privacy rights of individuals and the security rights of the state. The security of biometric data is highly localised as a result of its very sensitive nature and therefore, it is kept strictly under the Indian jurisdiction.

Shubh Joshi, 1st year, BALLB, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Introduction

What if, as lawyers or law students, we could complete days of research in just minutes and draft complex contracts in seconds? With the advent of artificial intelligence, there has been a disturbance in the job market filled with the hue and cry about people losing their jobs to AI, but if we learn how to use it, the same AI can make us a much more valuable and employable asset. According to a report by Goldman Sachs, 44% of all legal tasks can be automated simply by using AI. This will significantly cut down the time we spend on research and document drafting. Imagine how this can transform your daily workflow and productivity.

Changing Legal Practice

In contract management, AI tools are incredibly efficient, scanning contracts in seconds to identify key clauses, potential risks, and obligations, streamlining the entire review process. For example, JP Morgan’s "COIN" platform is a prime illustration of this efficiency. This platform reviews commercial loan agreements in seconds, a task that once took three hundred and sixty thousand hours of manual work annually.

Similarly, in due diligence, particularly during mergers and acquisitions, AI systems excel at analyzing large volumes of data from target companies to assess compliance, financial risks, and liabilities. Deloitte, for instance, uses AI-based tools to cut due diligence review times by 50%, enhancing both speed and accuracy in transactions. These examples show how AI-powered automation is redefining legal workflows, making them faster and more reliable.

AI and Legal Research

With the coming of AI research tools like ROSS Intelligence, which claims that it has boosted the research efficiency of law firms by thirty percent, the method of conducting research is slowly changing. Instead of spending multiple hours searching through different databases using Boolean Searches to find the accurate case laws, these AI tools can enable you to find what you need by just entering the correct prompt in plain English.

Researching with the help of AI is like a conversation interaction, which can even help you forecast a legal argument's success ratio by analyzing past judgments on similar matters. AI is alert on the recent developments in the field you are researching about and can provide you with the latest judgments and statutory developments.

A study by McKinsey found that 23% of a lawyer's job can already be automated with today's technology. All these developments can lead to more accurate and faster research.

Contract Review and Drafting

Contract drafting is something that the practitioners run away from as it is time-consuming and often repetitive. With the help of AI, lawyers can quickly generate the first drafts, leaving them more time for high-value work. AI also reduces human error and can form a contract with consistent language and formatting. The task of contract drafting and reviewing can become a lot faster with the help of AI; it is like going from a jog to a sprint.

These developments are not from a distant future, but several law firms are presently utilizing these AI tools. For example- Kira Systems is an AI tool that reviews contracts and helps the legal teams in quickly reviewing and analysing the key clauses, risks, and inconsistencies in the contracts. It ensures compliance with legal standards and speeds up the process of due diligence in merger and acquisition cases.

Also, another AI tool named LawGeex uses predefined templates to review and draft contracts automatically. It flags potential issues or deviations. It helps the lawyers to ensure accuracy and consistency in contract language.

However, we should keep in mind that drafting a contract is an artisanal skill through which the drafter creates a document that represents the collective experience of the people involved in the case around which the contract is formed. The growing industrial demand has to be met, but using AI might cause us to lose the artisanal skill of contract drafting, which requires creativity and emotional intelligence that no AI has been able to generate to date.

Indian judiciary’s stance on AI transforming legal practice

On 23rd May 2023, the Honourable Supreme Court invited bids for designing and implementing AI-based tools to transcribe court proceedings and arguments. It is an initiative aimed to enhance accuracy and reduce reliance on manual transcription.

In the case of Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, the HC rejected the bail petition of the accused on allegations of a brutal, fatal assault from the prosecution. The presiding judge was seen getting inputs from ChatGPT, an AI tool to obtain a wider perspective on the rules regarding granting of bail when cruelty is involved. However, it is to be noted that the reference to ChatGPT was neither expressed as an opinion on the case nor in the merits of the judgment. This reference was made with the sole intention of providing a broader understanding of bail jurisprudence when cruelty is a factor.

On the other hand, some of the Supreme Court judges like Justice Arvind Kumar have said that Artificial Intelligence can never replace Human Intelligence, and the ex-CJI Justice D.Y.Chandrachud , at a speech in IIT Madras opined that AI can be used as a tool to threaten and bully, perpetuate discrimination.

The Indian judiciary has, in some instances, been very welcoming of the developments in the AI industry but has also, on the other hand, have been critical of the repercussions of dependency on AI and its potential misuse.

Regulatory requirements

Co-founder of Open AI, Elon Musk, believes that the developments in the AI industry need a pause and that the sector needs regulations. The fast and unprecedented growth of the AI industry needs to be brought under the ambit of law, but the Indian government has not brought any such regulatory laws specific to artificial intelligence.

Some countries like Israel, the EU, China, and Brazil have developed AI-specific regulatory frameworks to monitor the growth and potential misuse of AI. India is facing problems with AI regarding intellectual property, cyber security, and ethics in general. The present statutes have not been adequate in dealing with these issues, which is why India, too, requires some legislation specific to AI to prevent its misuse.

Analysis and Conclusion

AI isn't just changing the way legal research and documentation is done; it's truly transforming the entire process. By automating tasks that used to take hours, improving accuracy, and offering more profound insights, AI is helping legal professionals work more efficiently and effectively. As AI continues to become a more significant part of the legal world, it's clear the future of law will be more accessible, data-driven, and streamlined.

While the benefits of AI in legal research and documentation are clear, there are also challenges we need to think about, such as whether the over-reliance on AI can become a concern in the future. It's essential to maintain your critical thinking skills and not blindly trust AI outputs.

Using AI in law also raises questions about accountability and transparency; additionally, it requires an investment to be made in the training of employees or students to enable them to use these AI tools effectively.

The Delhi High Court ruled in Christian Louboutin Sas v. Shoe Boutique-Shutiq, 2023, that there is still uncertainty around the accuracy and dependability of data created by artificial intelligence. The Court is certain that, given the current state of technology, artificial intelligence (AI) cannot replace human intelligence or the human element in the adjudication process. The instrument might be used for nothing more than exploratory study or basic knowledge at most.

It is essential to remember that AI is here to enhance our skills and not replace them. In the end, legal professionals are responsible for their work and must ensure that their client's interests are best served. While AI can be a great assistant in improving efficiency, it cannot substitute the expertise and experience of a lawyer.

Devansh Bansal, 2nd year, BALLB, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur

Historical Introduction

Intellectual property rights are a legal idea where they protect the incorporeal properties of individuals, which have been created by them through inventions, designs, artwork, music, movies, and many more. Throughout history, the very first mention of intellectual property dates back to 500 B.C.E. in the Greek colony of Sybaris. Notably, in ancient times, three other references to intellectual property were discussed in Bruce Bugbee’s formidable work The Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law (1967). These were said to have taken place in Alexandria and Roman times (1st Century C.E.).

Now let’s talk about the codification of rights. The very first statutes that recognized and protected the rights of authors and inventors were issued by the Republic of Florence in June 1421. The statute not only protected the rights but at the same time built an incentive mechanism that became the most important aspect of intellectual property law made by the Anglo-American system.

In the evolution of intellectual property, the Statute of Anne (1710) was considered by eminent scholars as the first statute of modern copyright. This statute was made by English scholars and gave authors protection for 14 years, which could be extended for another 14 years if the author was still alive. Through this, we can get a comprehensive idea about the inception and concept of IPR, which has already been in existence for a very long period of time.

The Changing Site of IPR in the Modern World

The landscape of these rights has completely changed after the explosion of the internet and new technologies, which have revolutionized the creation, distribution, and protection of IPR in the world. One of the major challenges in intellectual property in the digital age is copyright infringement. With the internet spreading like wildfire and giving free access to digital content, significant copyright infringement occurs when people copy and share the content of others without prior permission. This causes heavy losses to the creators and distributors of intellectual property and makes the implementation of IPR difficult.

One more challenge in the digital era, which has started posing big problems, is open-source software. These are software programs that openly provide their source code to the public for modifications, allowing them to create their own versions. A recent example is DeepSeek, where the company has made its source code public, causing significant problems and losses to tech giants in the USA. These companies may face significant difficulties in protecting their intellectual property in the future if they continue making their source code open to public use.

Copyright Issues in the Digital Era

The most infringed and the most misused intellectual property is copyright and the most difficult to regularise and control. Copyright guards the original works of the authors, creators, musicians, artisans, film-makers etc. it has a very wide scope and is not exhaustive in nature. In this tech-savvy world the major copyright challenges is piracy. With the rise of the digital platforms and the use of social media platforms people openly infringe the copyright without authorization and upload the content on various platforms and share the same ahead. This has caused financial difficulties to the digital platforms, movie and music producers and the holders of these copyrights.

Another aspect of misuse of copyright which has stood very difficult to tackle is the concept of fair use. The concept revolves around the using of certain copyrighted content without authorization for the purposes of review, condemnation, study, reaction, educational purposes, comment on the content etc. though the rise of digital era and the misuse of social media platforms it has become extremely difficult as to what constitute as fair use.

To solve the same the government should make a much stricter and detailed laws for the protection of copyrights and the stakeholders involved have to work together with different organisations and government bodies to educate the common public about the same which in future might mitigate them loses which they are incurring. In Total the issue of copyright is an complex legal issue with multiple people attached in the process and can be solved in the long run only.

Trademark Infringement the New-normal

Trademarks are rights of a company or an individual over a logo, domain name, brands or other marks which make the company different from the another. In the digital era this has become quite a challenge and its protection must also be done to protects the brand or company’s identity in the public and not spread a negative word for the brand to the common people. This infringement has become a new normal in the society nowadays. In the recent weeks there have been many legal battels fought in the court of law for trademark infringement like the case of Lodha group where one brother is restraining the other from using the trademark Lodha in their companies. The big brother is suing the younger one claiming that Lodha was their trademark.

Another such example is of the Lacoste group which ended their 23 yearlong battel against Singapore’s Crocodile International Pte limited and its Indian subsidiary ( Crocodile products private limited)

With this another significant battel between Burger King and a local restaurant in Pune where the company lost case after 13 years of legal battel but has appealed the order of the trial court and has gotten an stay on the order of the Pune trial court.

These cases show the longevity and the complex nature of trademark cases in India where the courts take years and years to decide a matter of trademark infringement. And due to this the company’s reputation in the market is always at stake and the public opinion of the company keeps dangling till the final judgment has come.

Challenges of Implementation of Intellectual property in the digital age

The implementation of intellectual property is a question of concern in this tech-savvy generation because of the fear of reproduction, copyright infringement and ease of making the digital content public through various social media platforms and make it available at a global scale with just a few clicks posing difficulty to the creators and owners of the property to monitor and control their use.

The challenge of jurisdiction is another big issue in the cases of intellectual property where because of its global reach and scale it is difficult to ascertain the jurisdiction. And also, the legal implementation of the rights in various jurisdiction makes it more challenging for the creators to pursue legal actions against the people who have committed the infringement.

Overall, the implementation of the rights needs to be done by a multilayered approach in today’s digital world with the cooperation and support of governments, international organisation and content creators we can ensure that the creativity and novelty remains protected.

The Road Ahead

Addressing the challenges in intellectual property can be tackled by the combination of legal and technological solutions where the legal one includes the implementation of the laws made for the protection of trademarks, copyrights, patents etc. and at the same time following international standards of preserving and protecting of intellectual property by the way of treaties and agreements that will help in making it easier for the countries to regulate and monitor these rights.

The Tech solutions such as digital rights management technologies which can prevent unauthorised piracy and the misuse of digital content. In today’s time due to the development of AI and machine learning we can use these technologies in detecting occurrences of infringement of intellectual property. This seems to be a far-fetched solution today but can very well be executed in the near future seeing how rapidly the artificial intelligence space is growing in terms of investment and growth.

Additionally, this can only be achieved successfully inly when the experts in the field of law and tech collaborate with each other and work on a solution together where the legal experts will look into the intricacies of the law and the regulations and the tech companies can provide with the means to solve the problem. Through this approach one can ensure that the originality and the imagination of the people will remain protected by the intellectual property and innovation continues to flourish in the digital age.

Khushi, 2nd year, BBALLB, Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Legal battle between AI and creativity:

Artificial intelligence, a new transformative force in the 21st century, has become integral to our lives. There lies no field in which the introduction of AI has not revolutionized. From healthcare to education, writing simple emails to analyzing complex data sets, this technology has enhanced efficiency by multiple folds. Artificial intelligence has nearly mimicked human intelligence in almost all spheres, even the creative domains that were considered uniquely a human quality, less vulnerable in terms of being affected by technological advancements. However, with the introduction of new AI applications, tasks like creative writing, video editing, and even the generation of images have been automated to a great context. In recent times, multiple countries have witnessed a number of lawsuits pertaining to copyright infringement against these AI generation platforms. However, the major challenge while navigating such a dispute is that the intellectual property laws have not yet caught up with the technological advancements in this sector. In this blog, we will try to understand the current legal frameworks governing copyright issues and how AI is challenging them to evolve to meet the needs of rapid technological advancements.

Beginning of the copyright dilemma:

As the name suggests, intellectual property is something born from one's intellect or brain. It includes many properties, including artistic work, scientific work, performing art, industrial designs, trademarks, etc. However, in today's time, technologies like DALL-E, Midjourney, and Adobe Firefly can generate multiple images within seconds. This software requires mere text input, and they have been trained over millions of photos to generate the most accurate depiction of the user's input. However, this raised an essential question about such images' ownership. To protect all these intangible inventions done by the human mind of an individual, intellectual property rights came into existence. The main aim of these rights was to give recognition to the creator as well as to prevent any third party from benefiting from its use. However, any creative invention previously was done by humans only, and Courts, with the help of legislation like The Copyright Act of 1957 or The Trademark Act of 1999, etc, could effectively resolve the dispute between two individuals. But with the onset of AI-generated content it creates a challenge for the courts to decide ownership as well as to offer a legal solution in case of infringement of rights of any individual.

AI as an author - identifying the gaps in the current legislation:

One of the most commonly referred to legislation under the IPR laws is The Copyrights Act of 1957. Section 2 (d) of the Act provides us with the definition of an author. It states- “Author" means,
(i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;
(ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer;
(iii) in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph, the artist;
(iv) in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph;
[(v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer; and
(vi) in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created;]
As per the existing legal system, AI does not hold a legal personality. As per the definition clause As per the existing legal system, AI does not hold a legal personality. As per the definition clause stated above, it is clear that the right of copyright or any intellectual property per se is granted to individuals or legal entities. Since AI is not recognized as a legal entity here, AI cannot be deemed to be called an author of AI-generated images. But Section- 2(d)
(vi) of the Copyrights Act does provide us in relation to works generated with the help of a computer, the author for the same would be considered who caused the work to be created. However, its interpretation in AI-related content poses challenges as the output is determined by a number of factors, including the user's input, complex algorithms, machine learning models, and several other technical aspects. If a right is infringed, it is hard to pin down the person liable for the same. In the case of AI, the liability then would fall upon either the developer of the software, the person operating it, or the person who is the end user who might have used the output for commercial purposes. Not only does the ambiguity of the aforementioned clause leave room for several legal issues, but it is simply insufficient to deal with the rapidly evolving AI technology. Since the inception of AI, multiple software applications have been developed, be it for image generation, video editing, and even modulating audio. These technological shifts keep on happening within a short span of a few months, and the current legal frameworks are not up to date to accommodate all the legal complications that individuals are facing today or that they might face in the near future.

Global Perspectives to AI and Copyright:

• United States: The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly refused to provide any copyright protection to AI-generated content and has limited such rights to human authors only. They hold the opinion that in order for the AI model to paint a picture like Picaso, it needs to be trained using the works of Picaso. The most recent example is of a New York-based artist, Kris Kashtanov, who wrote her comic book, ' Zarya of the Dawn.’ The author claimed that AI did not create the work but was instead assisted by AI. The Copyright office did not provide her with the copyright of the images as they were generated entirely with the help of an AI software named Midjourney, and the protection was only limited to the text of the work, arrangement of the work, and the coordination, which the author explicitly did.
• United Kingdom: While the United States holds a very clear stance on copyright laws, the United Kingdom has been facing challenges. While they are open to the idea of using AI in the creative fields as their strength, they lack legal certainty. One of the significant concerns they have been facing is control of the work of the right holders in terms of training AI models and providing remuneration to those individuals.

India’s changing approach from no rules to new rules:

Indian government does have a pro-innovative stance towards the use of AI, and it was depicted in the G20 declaration and a 2023 Parliamentary statement, which went far to say that they do not plan to regulate AI and wish to achieve its full potential. However, later on the government has made multiple efforts to regulate it. In March 2024, an advisory was issued to companies to seek government approval in order to deploy AI models. However, this advisory received backlash and was withdrawn. Meity (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) has also proposed a Digital India Act, legislation with the aim to regulate internet and AI-related issues in the country. While Meity wants to keep the regulations minimum, the Prime Minister's Advisory Council wishes for a more stringent set of rules and regulations. A draft report regarding the same has been made, but it has not been opened to the public eye yet.

Tackling the loopholes- The way forward:

The most viable solution would be to amend the Copyrights Act to incorporate AI-generated work and clarify the position of ownership regarding such work. However, as we move ahead, the technologies are only going to get more advanced, and the cons to it might include more violations of individual rights not merely limited to the copyrights only. Henceforth, separate legislation dealing with AI and IPR would be more beneficial in terms of defining ownership, liability, data usage to train AI models and other relevant aspects that could be considered. While drafting this legislation, the assistance of expert technicians, developers, etc. should be taken in order to reduce the possibility of any loopholes which specific individuals might exploit. Another suggestion would be that rather than overly descriptive rules and regulations, a more nuanced approach should be adopted to keep up with the new developments. On top of that, regular audits should be conducted to analyze whether the current legal framework is competent and in case of any shortcomings, they should be dealt with the help of a committee who keeps up with the latest AI updates in the market.

Conclusion- striking a balance between innovation and regulation:

It is evident that the way forward is to create a legal framework that balances both AI-assisted innovations and the protection of the rights of individuals arising out of creative endeavors. Policymakers should focus on designing some principal framework that lays down the ground rules while at the same time providing space and flexibility to incorporate any future changes. While the legislator must exercise his duties, he should also get assistance from technicians and experts in the particular field to have a nuanced understanding of how AI works and the potential problems that may arise in the future so that robust legislation can be drafted. As the technological landscape evolves, the legal system must evolve to ensure a system that protects and promotes the principles of fairness, justice, and accountability.

Eshita Deb, 5th year, BALLB, Baroda School of Legal Studies, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

Modern technology and globalization have made people interlinked and with the flexibilities of the media, public and personal image almost overlap in celebrities. The phenomenal popularity of celebrities and the widespread presence of social networks, advertising, and the Internet have made the problem of personality rights a burning issue in current legal debates. In its simplest form, personality rights or the right to publicity seek to protect identity of a person, which includes, name, image, voice, and other attributes. Personality rights refer to the legal rights that guarantee personal ownership and control of a persona as a product or image that is to be sold, marketed or commoditized especially against organizations or individuals who wish to capture or gain an improper control and access to the individual, persona or image of the person or personality in marketing their products among persons of similar personality or like-minded peoples.

Legal Basis of Personality Rights

In the Indian legal context, personality rights still constitute a relatively young line of legal development. Unlike the legal rights in personality, which legalizes the freedom of an individual to protect his image, identity or resemblance from being used by others commercially without his consent to be found in any codified statute, their protection has however been discerned through case laws and the extension of other legal principles including tort and intellectual property legal principles.

1. Constitution of India

One of the basic legal propositions regarding personality rights in India emanates from the right to privacy which has been held by the Supreme Court of India as part of the right to life and personal liberty embodied in article 21 of the Constitution. As in most of the cases like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated that celebrities are also protected under the right to privacy particularly the part of one’s identity which he or she wants to keep secret.

2. Copyright Act, 1957

The provision of the personality rights depending on performers can also be protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Act mainly relates to the protection of original works of authorship although it contains provisions dealing with performers’ rights as well as those of actors, musicians, singers and dancers.

• Moral Rights: Section 57 of the Copyright Act provides for moral rights for authors and performers. Moral rights give authors control of their work and to prevent any alteration of work that is prejudicial to their reputation.
• Rights of Performers: Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Act provides provisions on performer’s rights as follows;
• Right of Attribution (Right to be credited): This will entitle performers to be acknowledged as the author of performances to which they have contributed.
• Right of Integrity (Right to Restrain Misuse): This right enables performers to prevent further use of one’s identity or performance which may be prejudicial to their image.
3. Trademarks Act, 1999

Section 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999 enables an individual to claim the protection of personal identity especially where the person is famous for being famous such as celebrities. While the Act deals primarily with the protection of trade names, logos, and symbols, its provisions have been adapted to safeguard personality rights, specifically through:

• Section 14: This section adds the proviso that the name be not registrable as a trademark if it is the name of a living person or a deceased person within the past twenty years, without the consent of such person or his heirs.
• Section 2(m): The definition of a trademark in this section also incorporates ‘names’ this means that celebrities are free to trademark their names. This registration keeps off any other person from using the name which is an identification of the public figure for business and financial gains.
4. Judicial Precedents: Changing Nature of Personality Rights in Jurisprudence

Judicial decisions have a significant role to perform in the development of personality right law in Indian context. Although statutory law has fallen short to provide these right expressly, the Indian common law courts have been able to fashion them through judicial interpretation and application of principles of trademark passing off and defamation.

• Passing Off: This is a legal provision that arises when persona of an individual is adopted in confusing the public usually for a vices purpose say for moneymaking purposes.
• Right to Publicity: Indian courts have in several cases accepted the right of identity personality commercial exploitation known as the right to publicity. Thus in cases like D.M. Entertainment, the judgement made it quite clear starting with the principle that no person has the authority to use the name and likeness of another for economic gain.
• Recent Developments: Using the Jackie Shroff case, the Delhi High Court in its perception continued the unveiling of personality rights by passing John Doe order prohibiting the defendant from using the actor’s name, image, or voice, and voice across e-commerce websites, social media platforms, among others.

Application and concept of John Doe alias Ashok Kumar orders

In Indian jurisprudence, a John Doe order (or otherwise known as an Ashok Kumar order) refer to a very special form of relief that exists in Indian legal system. However, unlike any conventional legal suits where the defendant is well known, an order in John Doe form is invoked if the identity of the infringing party or parties is not well discerned or if it is rather complex to determine all the wrong doers of a given unlawful act. A John Doe order is an ex parte order; this is an order the court gives to the unknown defendants who are undertaking several activities that the law does not allow or ordering them to do something they are prohibited from doing. This order is often used in a situation when a number of individuals infringed a copyright, or when an unauthorized use is perpetrated and the individual responsible for their act cannot be identified at the time an action is brought.

Pioneering case of John Doe order on Personality Rights: The case of Amitabh Bachchan

The Delhi High Court judgement in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. (2022) is a landmark judgement for the extension of legal rights of personality in India. This was the first time that the Court had allowed for a John Doe (Ashok Kumar) order to protect the personality rights of one of Bollywood’s most famous stars, Amitabh Bachchan, from being used to commercial benefit without his consent. This significant judgement forms a significant decision that defines the legal personality rights within India while providing sufficient response to the constantly increasing fraudulent and commercial utilisation of the personalities for cheater and fake individuals especially in the 21st century world.

In this particular case, Amitabh Bachchan as a big movie star of India’s cinema industry, pursued legal action against nine clear defendants for identity theft and impersonation for the purpose of fraudulent and unlawful economic gain. Bachchan stated that these defendants were using name, voice, photographs of him, as well as his persona to mislead the public and make use of him to market their businesses or products. Among the most notorious with regard to this exploitative use of celebrity image was the KBC Lottery Scam, the fraudsters to deceive the public deployed images and voice of Bachchan to portray the illusion that he was endorsing the Lottery scam. This exploitation of his persona was not only was an infringement of his publicity rights but also dangerous to his image since the public was being led to believe that he was partner to these dishonorable deeds.

Given the gravity of the subject and the prima facie case of reputational damage to Amitabh Bachchan, the Delhi High Court under Justice Navin Chawla granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff. This ruling prohibited the named defendants, and those unknown individuals referred to as John Doe defendants from continued violation of Bachchan’s personality rights for self or business exploitation. The Court found that Bachchan had a prima facie case made out and that the balance of convenience favoured Bachchan. If the defendants are allowed to continue with these activities, grave irreparable injury would be inflicted to the plaintiff by eradicating his rights as provided for in the laws of the land. The Court also noted that on the part of the defendants, the use of his persona, was not inadvertent, but rather was being done with a primary design to benefit from his celebrity status for fraudulent and commercial gains.

John Doe Order in AI Era-The Vishnu Manchu Case

Though the aspect that the Delhi High Court recently provided a John Doe order to protect the personality of an Indian actor, producer Vishnu Manchu. The recent judgement is a significant addition to the development of the legal protection of personality rights in India. This case acknowledges the niche that is currently offered by the law to apply for damages due to the unauthorized use of the persona especially in the modern world where misuse is likely through technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and deep-fake technology. Vishnu Manchu, filed before the Delhi High Court to seek protection of name, voice, image, likeness and other aspects of persona owing to his personality as an actor. The actor also cited instances where unauthorized pictures of him were doctored alongside animals. The actor said that excerpt from his interviews, were being published on social media with wrong portrayals, with no consent or authorization from him being aware of the fact that a any adverse impact on Vishnu Manchu personality cannot be compensated the Delhi High Court promptly issued the John Doe Order to prevent any person or company to use or exploit this personality without its consent.

The Supreme Court of India in the Vishnu Manchu affair has brought new history in the recognition of the personality rights. It not only protects the actor from having other people using his/her performer identification but also fosters a good setting for future similar actor conditions they might be facing. The activities of the Court, its directives to intermediaries, and focus on accountability and follow-up guarantee that personality rights protection is not a mere legal concept but an enforceable action in today’s world, AI, deep-fake technology and photo manipulation complicate the protection of identities belonging to public figures.

Conclusion

The technological advancement in the last two decades complemented by the advancement in Artificial Intelligence AI has considerably transformed the personality rights across the globe especially in India. The cases involving John Doe orders – legal patents used as shields against the unauthorized appropriation of a persona are a new tradition in the Indian juridical outlook, where anonymity and personality are closer than they have ever been to mere facades of commercial trade. Continuing controversies over personalities such as Amitabh Bachchan and Vishnu Manchu show the need for the said legislations in protecting personalities’ right to their names, images, voices, and likenesses in an age where the digital platforms’ evils are rife.

Therefore, the John Doe orders are a very significant continuing progression in the development of personality rights as a part of Indian law. The following legal remedies are helpful to the shame-public figures who are faced with the exploitation of the persona to avoid the situation, where persona is used to make profits without the subject’s permission. The John Doe order has proved to be a robust mechanism in this regard; the courts can move for an injunction against Doe infringers especially where impersonation of a personality’s identity is widespread online. As digital technologies continue to evolve, these legal protections will only continue to grow in importance, safeguarding the personal and professional reputations of individuals in a world, where their identity can be misappropriated by just a click of a button.