Transformative Shifts : The Impact of AI, Gen AI, and AR on the Media and Entertainment Sector

The media and entertainment sector is currently undergoing a metamorphosis, driven by the emergence of groundbreaking virtual and augmented technologies. As per a PwC study, AI's impact on this sector could soar to $15.7 trillion by 2030, illustrating the profound influence of AI, Generative AI (Gen AI), and AR on the digital media landscape.

AI, Gen AI, and Augmented Reality (AR) stand at the forefront of this transformative journey. These innovations are reshaping the creation, distribution, and consumption of content. For instance, AI and Gen AI are revolutionizing content customization and generation, empowering platforms to deliver tailored experiences and facilitate the creation of novel, inventive content. For instance, Spotify's utilization of AI to curate music recommendations epitomizes content customization. By analyzing user listening patterns, their technology suggests new tracks and playlists, providing users with highly personalized experiences. Augmented Reality (AR) represents another pivotal advancement, offering immersive encounters that seamlessly blend digital elements with reality. For example, Snapchat's AR filters serve as a notable illustration of AR's integration into social media. These filters offer interactive and entertaining experiences, seamlessly merging digital components with real-world environments, transforming user engagement within the app.

The trajectory of interactive media's expansion is remarkable, fueled by its user-driven dynamics. Research indicates that interactive content elicits 4 to 5 times greater engagement compared to static content, underlining a significant change in consumer preferences towards participative experiences. The influence of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies has been instrumental in propelling this transformation. With the VR market projected to reach $71.2 billion by 2028, businesses are increasingly exploring the potential of these technologies for immersive storytelling and brand interactions.

Burberry Limited v. M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.

Despite prior registration, any attempt to free ride on reputation and goodwill of another mark shall be actionable under the law of passing off

Background: Burberry Limited is recognized globally as a premium lifestyle designer brand and has been consistently listed among 'The 100 Best Global Brands' by Interbrand. The Plaintiff owns trademarks for fragrances, including 'MY BURBERRY' and 'MR. BURBERRY,' which were globally adopted in 2014 and 2016, respectively and had acquired significant goodwill and reputation through extensive advertising and commercial success.

Contentions: The Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off of their trademarks and trade dress. The Defendants marketed perfumes and fragrances under the marks 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL,' along with a trade dress identical to that of the Plaintiff's products.

The Defendants argued that their marks were distinct from the Plaintiff's and that there was no similarity between the prominent parts of the competing marks, i.e., ‘Burberry’ and ‘Petrol’. They assert that their marks are registered, permitting their use, and claim to have adopted them with bona fide intent.

Analysis: The Court concluded that the Defendants' actions exhibit a mala fide intent to exploit the Plaintiff's established reputation. Despite the lawful registration of their trademarks, the Defendants are using them in a manner suggestive of counterfeiting.

The Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of passing off and granted an injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from using the impugned marks and trade dress. The Court rejected the Defendants' request for an exception regarding their already manufactured products, deeming them counterfeit and against public interest.

Patent Updates from IP India

I.?Modified Timelines:

·?Reduced timeline for filing Request for Examination (RFE) from 48 months to 31 months.

· Relaxation in submission of updated information regarding corresponding foreign applications under Section 8(1).

·?Extension of time for filing response to examination report to 9 months from date of FER.

·?Extension of time specified or condoning delay by the Controller for up to 6 months.

·?Change in frequency of filing working statements (Form 27) to once every three years.

II.?Amendments in Pre-grant Opposition Proceedings:

· Introduction of official fee for filing pre-grant opposition.

·?Shortened timeline for filing reply statement to pre-grant representation by the applicant to two months.

III.?Divisional Applications:

·?Clarification that divisional application can be filed in respect of an invention disclosed in the provisional or complete application.

IV.?Amendments in Statement of Working (Form 27):

·??Revision of Form 27, requiring patentees to state whether patent is worked or not, and availability for licensing.

V.?Provisions for Grace Period:

·?Introduction of Form 31 and additional requirements for availing grace period under new Rule 29A.

VI.?Declaration of Inventorship:

·?Introduction of Rule 70A and Form 8A for applying for certificate of inventorship.

VII.?Amendments to Official Fees:

·?Fee for requesting extension/condonation of delay increased to INR 50,000 per month for large entities and INR 10,000 per month for others.

·?Official application fee for filing a patent of addition reduced to 50% of that payable for other applications.

·?10% discount on patent renewal fees for e-filing in advance for at least 4 years.

·?Increase in official filing fee for post-grant opposition.

·?Waiver of official fee for mentioning an inventor in the patent application.

·?Waiver of official fee for surrendering a patent under Section 63.

Our Success Story- Trademark

Haven’t Applied For Trademark Registration but You Are The Prior User?

Do you know that even if your trademark is registered, it can be cancelled by USPTO on the ground of non use?

We came across a situation where we found a mark similar to our applied for mark registered with USPTO during the course of our trademark clearance search. However, upon thorough perusal of the impugned mark, we came to know that it was not in commercial use in United States. We promptly suggested our client to file for cancellation proceedings against the impugned mark and the matter was eventually decided in our favour.

Our client thus became owner of a trademark which was otherwise already registered with USPTO.

Important Points :

1. Always conduct proper due diligence via trademark clearance search to ascertain the chances of procuring a successful trademark registration.

2. Ensure continuous use of mark in relation to applied for goods post registration.

3. Apply for incontestability after five years of successful registration on Principal Register with USPTO to avoid unwarranted claims.?

Our Editorial Team

Editor in chief : Siddharth Mathur

Assistant Editors : Foram Shah, Keya Modi

Research Assistants : Foram Shah, Keya Modi

Blog Author : Akankshya Mohapatra

Designer : Sanskruti Mohanty