A good legal case but a bad PR case? The Humans of New York versus Humans of Bombay versus People of India controversy

The copyright infringement dispute between Humans of Bombay (HoB) and People of India (PoI) became a hot topic on social media after Humans of New York (HoNY) founder Brandon Stanton weighed in, expressing his discontent with the suit filed by HoB..Humans of New York was started in 2010 as a photography project. Karishma Mehta founded Humans of Bombay in 2014. The idea behind both the two platforms is largely similar - they both tell stories of people who live in the two cities. Both platforms have large followings on social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.Stanton took to X (formerly Twitter) last week to state that he had been quiet on the "appropriation" of his work by HoB because it shares important stories. However, he a took a dim view of the company suing others for similar reasons..Several social media handles also pointed out that HoB itself came after HoNY and that the idea behind the two platforms are quite similar..In response to Stanton's tweet, Humans of Bombay issued the following statement:.We take a closer look at the case before the Delhi High Court between HoB and PoI..What is the case?.HoB sued PoI for unlicensed adaptation, appropriation of its films, literary works, unique format storytelling, creative expression, presentation of story board as well as the manner that is identified with HoB.It is HoB’s case that PoI has not only imitated its storytelling style but also copied its photos, films, and stories sans authorisation. HoB annexed several screenshots to provide evidence of infringement and said that PoI has been passing off its material as their own..Justice Prathiba M Singh of the Delhi High Court issued summons on the suit and as well as notice on HoB’s interim relief application for injunction against PoI.In its order, the Court observed that prima facie, there is substantial imitation and, in some cases, the images are identical or imitative..Does HoNY have a case of trademark infringement of trademark or passing off against HoB?.Even though Stanton has not indicated any likelihood of taking HoB to court, we reached out to IP lawyers to see if there is a hypothetical case of infringement..Managing Partner Pravin Anand of Anand and Anand said that whether HoNY can sue HoB for trademark infringement would depend on whether its trademark is registered. If the trademark is not registered, then there may be a case of passing off, but that too would have arguments from both sides."Assuming that the HoNY trademark is not registered, then HoNY can argue that formats and titles of the two platforms are so similar and people may think that HoB is the Indian chapter of HoNY and there may be some sense in that. At the same time, the Indian guys (HoB) can argue that the title is descriptive. HoB can also refer to Stanton's comment that HoB is doing a good job," Anand explained. .Senior Advocate Chander M Lall largely agreed with the view.He said that except for the names of the cities, the two trademarks are completely similar and the case of passing off would depend on whether people associate HoB with HoNY or not.If yes, then HoNY may have a case of passing off, Lall stressed..Meanwhile, Advocate Ameet Datta was of the view that HoNY could have had a case of passing off, but because they did not press it all these years, the equity has built up in favour of HoB.Datta said that Stanton’s comments on X amounts to acquiescence.“It is very clear that owners of HoNY consciously did not press any claim so over the last couple of years, the equity in favour of HoB has built up...Clearly there are laches and delays in the case as well and now his [Stanton’s] own recent post where he says that ‘I consciously decided not to take any action’ is acquiescence. So, while from a theoretical purpose there could have been a case of passing off, the fact is that they have acquiesced to it makes it an academic question,” Datta said..Shwetasree Majumder commented that there is a strong public opinion against Karishma Mehta primarily because she is monetising her platform.Majumder stated that when it comes to the HoB versus HoNY dispute, there is no case of infringement because it is very clear that HoB is inspired by HoNY. However, what Mehta has built is completely on its own and there is no infringement of the copyrighted work done by HoNY, she said. .if the HoB’s content has been lifted and pasted by PoI, then it is a clear cut case of copyright infringementShwetasree Majumder.“I think Brandon Stanton’s comment is also based on assumption that HoB is suing PoI for the infringement of the idea behind these platforms. But looking at the order, this is not the case.” When it comes to the HoB versus PoI dispute, if the HoB’s content has been lifted and pasted by PoI, then it is a clear cut case of copyright infringement, Majumder added..Has PoI infringed upon HoB's copyright?.Lall said that the Court's order shows that PoI has purely lifted the pictures, artistic work and overall idea of HoB, and that gives the latter a strong case.“What is reflected in the plaint and the order is that PoI has purely lifted some of the content of HoB. If that is true, then there is clear copyright infringement,” he said..Anand explained that it is evident from the order that various literary works of the HoB have been copied by POI on its platform and in some instances, identical works have been copied including pictures and videos..What is a good legal case, can sometimes become a bad public relations (PR) caseAmeet Datta.Datta was of the view that HoB has a good copyright infringement case.“What is a good legal case, can sometimes become a bad public relations (PR) case. This is what has happened here…The general misconception that people have is that anyone can copy anything that is there on social media. But if I post a poem, its copyright is with me. Some may say they are not monetising my poem but the Copyright Act is not concerned with monetisation. To me, this case appears to be a good case of copyright infringement,” Datta said.....the Copyright Act is not concerned with monetisation. To me, this case appears to be a good case of copyright infringement.Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.In her order, Justice Singh had raised questions on the issue of whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case, given that HoB is based in Mumbai.However, HoB’s counsel argued that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction in the matter, as a number of subjects who were being interviewed by PoI are based out of Delhi..Datta opined that the Delhi High Court may not be the right court to deal with the case, and that proving jurisdiction would be an uphill task for HoB’s counsel.“Clearly, courts have said that for jurisdiction purposes, access is not enough; there must be some activity… In my personal view, prima facie, I believe the jurisdiction is an uphill battle and this may not be the right court.”