“Ideas can be taught — but not owned.” Short Description Bikram’s Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga, LLC is a significant copyright law case that clarified the limits of copyright protection over functional systems. The case addressed whether a fixed sequence of yoga poses could be protected under copyright law or whether it constituted an uncopyrightable method or system. Facts Bikram Choudhury developed a specific sequence of 26 yoga postures and two breathing exercis

“When luxury meets laughter — parody is not infringement.” Short Description Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC is an important trademark law case that examined whether parody products infringe or dilute famous trademarks. The case clarified how courts evaluate trademark infringement and dilution when a well-known luxury brand is humorously imitated for parody purposes. Facts Louis Vuitton Malletier is a globally renowned luxury fashion house and the owner of f

“Trademark protection must yield to freedom of artistic expression.” Short Description Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. is a landmark trademark law case that explored the conflict between trademark rights and freedom of speech. The case examined whether the use of the famous “Barbie” trademark in the song Barbie Girl constituted trademark infringement and dilution, or whether it was a legally protected parody under the First Amendment. Facts Mattel, Inc. is the owner of the

“The battle between corporate ownership and creative legacy.” Short Description The case of Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby is a landmark copyright dispute that examined whether world-famous comic book characters created by Jack Kirby were “works made for hire.” The decision determined whether ownership belonged to Marvel Comics or to the heirs of the original creator. This case is significant because it clarifies how freelance creative work is treated under U.S. copyright l

“Technology cannot be used to bypass copyright obligations.” SHORT DESCRIPTION American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. is a landmark decision on the application of copyright law to modern broadcasting technology. The case examined whether a technology-driven business model that retransmitted television broadcasts over the internet without authorisation could escape liability by relying on technical distinctions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed that cop

United States District Court (S.D. New York) – 2008 “Fan creativity ends where commercial exploitation begins.” SHORT DESCRIPTION Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books is a significant copyright and trademark decision dealing with the limits of fan-created works. The case examined whether a reference guide based on the famous Harry Potter series could be published without infringing the author’s and studio’s intellectual property rights. The judgment clearly distinguis

United States District Court – 1998 “Digital creativity is protected—even at the level of code.” SHORT DESCRIPTION Adobe Systems Inc. v. Southern Software Inc. is a landmark copyright case that clarified the scope of copyright protection for computer font software. The judgment established that even subtle and technical elements of digital design, when expressed through computer code, are entitled to copyright protection. This case is frequently cited in disputes involving so

United States District Court, Northern District of California – 2011 “A famous mark cannot be diluted by clever wordplay.” SHORT DESCRIPTION Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com LLC is an important trademark infringement and dilution case that highlights how well-known trademarks enjoy enhanced protection, especially in the digital space. The case reinforces the principle that even slight variations of a famous brand name, when used in related online services, can amount to tradem

Delhi High Court – Dynamic Injunction in Copyright Infringement “Digital piracy cannot hide behind changing identities.” SHORT DESCRIPTION Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal is a significant Indian copyright enforcement case dealing with online piracy and illegal streaming of copyrighted television content. The Delhi High Court addressed the growing challenge of rogue websites that repeatedly infringe copyright by changing domain names and technical identifiers. This case

“A famous name deserves protection beyond imitation.” SHORT DESCRIPTION Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd is a landmark decision on passing off and the protection of well-known geographical and brand names. The English Court of Appeal reaffirmed that famous names such as “Champagne” carry immense goodwill, reputation, and exclusivity. The judgment strengthened legal safeguards against misappropriation of such names, even where consumers may not be directly confused about origin. FAC

“Geographical names cannot be used to mislead.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The decision in Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd is a classic and influential case on passing off and the protection of geographical indications. The English High Court recognised that certain geographical names, such as “Champagne,” have acquired a distinctive reputation associated with quality, origin, and method of production. The case established that using such names for unrelated or inferior products a

“Online platforms cannot turn a blind eye to infringement.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The judgment in L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG is a landmark decision that defined the responsibility of online marketplace operators in cases of trademark infringement. The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that while online platforms may benefit from liability exemptions, such protection is not absolute. Where a platform plays an active role in promoting or facilitating infringi

“Standard-essential patents must be licensed fairly, not used as weapons.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The decision in Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. InterDigital, Inc. is a landmark ruling on the licensing of Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) and the application of FRAND principles (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory). The Supreme People’s Court of China clarified the obligations of SEP holders and strengthened judicial oversight to prevent abuse of dominant market position. T

“Fame does not vanish at the border of translation.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The case of Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. is a landmark personality rights and trademark decision that clarified the protection available to internationally famous individuals in China. The Supreme People’s Court of China recognized that the unauthorized commercial use of a famous person’s name—even in its Chinese transliteration—can violate personality rights and constitute unfair competition

“Copyright does not protect data stripped of human creativity.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The decision in Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd is a significant Australian copyright case dealing with the protection of compilations, databases, and safety information sheets. The Federal Court examined whether material derived from factual data and regulatory standards can attract copyright protection. The ruling reaffirmed that copyright subsists only where there is sufficient human intellectu

Madras High Court – Interim and Reserved Judgment (2026) “A brand’s goodwill cannot be traded on imitation.” SHORT DESCRIPTION This is a trademark infringement dispute between Sangeetha Caterers & Consultants LLP, the owner of the well-known Chennai restaurant brand Sangeetha, and its former franchisees, now operating under the name Geetham. The Madras High Court has reserved its judgment after detailed arguments and permitted both sides to explore a settlement before pronoun

“Copyright protects original expression, not business ideas.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The decision in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd is a landmark ruling on the distinction between protectable expression and unprotectable ideas in copyright law. The High Court of Australia clarified that copyright does not extend to functional concepts, business logic, or abstract ideas embedded in computer software. Instead, protection is limited strictly to the original form

“Data without authorship cannot claim copyright.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The case of Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd is a landmark decision that reinforced the principle that copyright protection requires identifiable human authorship and originality. The Federal Court of Australia held that large-scale compilations of factual data generated through automated processes cannot attract copyright protection merely due to the effort, investment, or resources inv

“Copyright protects originality, not effort alone.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The judgment in IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd is a landmark decision that reshaped the understanding of originality in copyright law, particularly in relation to factual compilations. The High Court of Australia rejected the traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine and reaffirmed that copyright subsists only in works that involve independent intellectual effort and creativity. This case is

“Copyright protects expression, not economic control over copies.” SHORT DESCRIPTION The decision in Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc. is a foundational judgment that clarified the scope and purpose of copyright law, particularly the limits of an author’s control once a lawful copy of a work has been sold. The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that copyright is intended to encourage creativity by protecting original expression, not to grant perpetual control