This Week in IP

Image credits: via Pixabay

Drafting credit: Avani Marudwar, Research Associate

Weekly IPR Update | 17 August 2026 – 23 August 2026

CGPDTM released Draft Manual of Trade Marks Practice & Procedure

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks has released a draft manual aimed at bringing consistency to how the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 are applied in practice. 1 The manual is intended to function as a working guide for registry officers and other stakeholders, setting out the concepts, requirements and standard procedures that underlie trademark administration in India. The draft walks through the full trademark application lifecycle across several chapters. These address filing, examination, including both absolute and relative grounds for refusal, and classification review. Further chapters outline the opposition process, publication in the Trademarks Journal, registration and rectification. The concluding chapters cover pre-registration amendments and the division of applications, renewal, assignment and transmission, and claims relating to prior use or well known mark status.Among its specific provisions, the manual states that sound marks must be submitted as MP3 files under thirty seconds in duration, and that applications may be treated as abandoned where compliance deadlines are not met. The CGPDTM has invited public suggestions on the draft manual, to be submitted by September 4, 2026. Comments on the draft may be forwarded to the office at [email protected] and [email protected]. Read More

Patent Office Releases Version 4.0 Draft Manual

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks has released Version 4.0 of its Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, updating guidance on filing, examination, and prosecution under the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003. The revised Manual folds recent judicial pronouncements directly into the operative text rather than treating them as external commentary.2 Most notably on the scope of permissible amendments under Sections 57 and 59. It draws on the Delhi High Court’s rulings in The Regents of the University of California v. Controller General of Patents and OpenTV Inc. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs to confirm that amendments may narrow but never broaden claims beyond their originally filed scope. On divisional applications, it adopts the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench holding in Syngenta Limited v. Controller of Patents that a divisional filing is maintainable whether applicant-initiated or Controller-directed, so long as plurality of inventions is evidenced in the specification. It separately cites Selfdot Technologies v. Controller General of Patents (Madras HC) and Ravi Kamal Bali v. Kala Tech (Bombay HC) to confirm that a patent of addition remains distinct from a divisional and available only to the main invention’s patentee.

Procedurally, the Manual flags the pending transition from the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 to the SHANTI Act, 2025 (once notified), and tightens requirements around biological-material disclosure, WIPO ST.25/ST.26 sequence-listing formats, and Form-26 stamping compliance. The office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has invited suggestions on the draft manual till September 4, 2026. Comments on the draft manual can be forwarded to cgoffice[dot]in[at]gov[dot]in and llc[dash]ipo[at]gov[dot]in. Read more here.

Madras High Court Restrains Matrimony.com From Using ‘Jodii’ Mark

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has restrained Matrimony.com Limited from using “Jodii” for its matchmaking app, setting aside a 2022 Single Judge order dismissing FreeElective Network’s infringement and passing off suit over its registered mark “Jodi365.” 3 FreeElective had used “Jodi365” since 2009. Matrimony.com launched “Jodii” in 2021 under “BharatMatrimony.” The Single Judge had found “Jodi365” distinctive as a composite mark but treated “Jodi” as descriptive. The Bench disagreed, holding “Jodi” was the mark’s distinguishing, prominent and essential feature, and that under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a sub-element’s distinctiveness cannot be assessed separately. It also held that comparing marks on visual appearance alone, ignoring phonetic similarity, was untenable, applying Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Matrimony.com’s common to trade defense failed for lack of evidence on the volume, extent, or reputation of third-party sites cited. Finding deceptive similarity and a likelihood that customers would enroll with Matrimony.com’s platform believing it associated with FreeElective, the Bench allowed the appeal, decreed the suit, granted injunctions, and ordered surrender and destruction of all “Jodii” material, while declining the Rs 1 crore damages claim for want of evidence.4 Read More

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Sun Pharma Over Emami’s ‘Zandu Balm’ Disparagement Suit

A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has set aside a temporary injunction restraining Sun Pharmaceutical Industries from airing an advertisement Emami alleged disparaged its Zandu Balm, Mentho Plus Balm and Zandu Ultra Power Balm.5 The Bench held the advertisement did not target Emami’s products, noting that there is “precious nothing to connect the product of the plaintiff with the advertisement,” since it carried no brand name or distinctive shape, design, or colour tied to Emami. Sun Pharma had argued the dispute was a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since Emami relied on its trademark, copyright, and design registrations and valued the suit at Rs. 50 crore. The Bench rejected this, holding “there is a fundamental distinction between disparagement of a product and infringement/passing off of trademark and/or copyright,” and found Emami’s references to its registrations incidental with infringement and not pleaded as the basis of the suit. The matter could therefore proceed before the ordinary civil court. On merits, Emami had relied on its 57% market share in the balm segment to argue that any reference to “Balm” would be understood as referring to its products, but the Bench found Emami’s own pleadings did not allege generic disparagement, and rejected the trial court’s presumption that market share alone made “Balm” exclusively linked to Emami, holding it was unable to agree with that conclusion. Finding no prima facie case of disparagement made out, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction, clarifying its observations were tentative and would not bind the trial court in deciding the injunction application or the suit. 6 Read More

Bombay High Court Grants Ad-Interim Injunction to Novex Communications

A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction to Novex Communications Private Limited in a suit for copyright infringement and a quia timet action against Next Act Productions Private Limited and 14 other defendants, mostly hospitality and event venues across India scheduled to host events through August and September 2026.7 Novex pleaded ownership of copyright in sound recordings acquired through Assignment Agreements and stated it had obtained roughly 100 similar orders from courts across the country, relying on a prior order passed by the same Court.The Court granted ad-interim relief against Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 13, restraining them, their directors, employees, agents, and licensees from publicly performing or communicating the assigned sound recordings, or allowing their premises to be used for that purpose or for any other infringement of Novex’s copyright, and listed the matter to continue on August 27, 2026. Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Varun Beverages From Using ‘SMOOTH’

The Delhi High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Varun Beverages Limited from using the mark “SMOOTH” for its dairy-based yoghurt drink, holding it prima facie deceptively similar to Parle Agro Private Limited’s registered “SMOODH” mark. Parle Agro had adopted “SMOODH” in 2020, launched flavoured dairy drinks under it in 2021, and held registrations across Classes 29, 32 and 35. On July 24, 2026, Parle Agro learned that Varun Beverages, in partnership with Japan’s Asahi Group, planned to launch a dairy-based yoghurt drink under the brand CALPIS bearing the mark “SMOOTH,” and sought an injunction before the product entered the Indian market. The Court found Varun Beverages had engaged in smart copying by substituting “D” for “T” in “SMOODH,” holding the defendants had carefully and cautiously substituted the letter ‘D’ to ‘T’. It also found the packaging reinforced the case for infringement, since the defendants’ own brand name CALPIS appeared in smaller font than “SMOOTH,” which the Court held was designed to misrepresent to the public that their product has an association and/or some commercial nexus with the Plaintiff. 8

Noting Parle Agro’s sales, promotional spend, celebrity endorsements and media coverage established immense goodwill and reputation in the mark, the Court held that use of “SMOOTH” would result in dilution and infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in Parle Agro’s favour, the Court restrained Varun Beverages, its officers, distributors and agents from using “SMOOTH” or any deceptively similar mark, and from using packaging that gave the impugned mark greater prominence than their own brand name. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on September 24, 2026 and before the Court on December 17, 2026.9 Read More

Delhi High Court Cancels ‘DAPLOGIN’ Trademark under Razenta Pharmaceuticals

The Delhi High Court has allowed Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories’ petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, cancelling Razenta Pharmaceuticals’ registration for “DAPLOGIN” and directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within six weeks. 10 Dr. Reddy’s claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of “DAPLO” since 2020, a coined word with no dictionary meaning, used for a Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus drug. “DAPLOGIN,” is used for the same category of drug. Dr. Reddy’s said it discovered the registration only in March 2025 via the Tata 1mg website. The Court held “DAPLO” was neither publici juris nor common or generic, but a coined and distinctive mark, conceived by the Petitioner by combining ‘DAP’ and ‘LO’.” On comparison, it found phonetic similarity, holding that while pronouncing DAPLOGIN, the word DAPLO will be prominently pronounced since DAPLO’s two syllables carry into DAPLOGIN’s three.

The Court questioned Razenta’s adoption of the mark, asking why Respondent No.1 adopted DAPLOGIN with DAPLO as a prefix and a dominant part of its mark, knowing that DAPLO was Petitioner’s mark for the same disease category. It rejected Razenta’s common to trade defence, noting only four other marks with the “DAPLO” prefix were cited with no evidence of actual market use, and applied the heightened scrutiny for pharmaceutical marks under Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reiterating that confusion between medicinal products may be life threatening, not merely inconvenient, and that prescription-only status does not eliminate the risk. Holding “DAPLOGIN” violated Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a) and 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court allowed the petition and ordered cancellation of the registration.11 Read More

Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Holding Unlicensed IPRS Music in Hotel Rooms Is Copyright Infringement

A division Bench of the Supreme Court has stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment which had held that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms amounts to communication to the public under the Copyright Act, 1957 and constitutes infringement absent a licence. 12 The High Court had restrained Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited from communicating works of members of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to guests through in-room television without an IPRS licence, and had set aside a Darjeeling District Judge order refusing IPRS interim relief. Hotel Appolo, argued the hotel itself is the subscriber and consumer of the cable signal, with the cable operator separately holding a licence from IPRS, submitting that the hotel itself is the subscriber and framing the issue as whether “the hotel, as the subscriber and end consumer, would cease to be the ultimate consumer merely because its guests view the programmes in the hotel rooms.” It relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Hotel and Restaurant Association v. Star India, where the Court had held the hotel is a consumer in itself such that guest viewing amounts to viewing by the hotel, and argued Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, concerning use in a residential society’s common area or banquet hall, does not include hotels, hotel rooms and could not support a finding of communication to the public. When the Bench asked for the record showing the cable operator held an IPRS licence, the appellant responded that no one disputed that the cable operator has a licence from an IPRS, offering to place an affidavit on record. The Court stayed the High Court judgment and issued notice.13 Read More

Sonu Nigam Namesake Settles Personality Rights Suit Before Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court has recorded a settlement bringing to an end a year-long personality rights dispute between singer Sonu Nigam and a man operating a social media account under the name ‘Sonu Nigam’. 14 The singer had sued to restrain the defendant, Sonu Nigam Singh, and persons acting through him, from violating his personality and publicity rights by using the name ‘Sonu Nigam’, his photograph, likeness or other personality attributes without authorisation, and from passing off the account or any associated services as being those of, or endorsed by, the singer. The court had passed an ad interim order before restraining the defendant from using the display name ‘Sonu Nigam’ per se on social media. The defendant initially failed to comply, prompting a second interim application before he complied and the singer did not press it further.

Under the Consent Terms, the defendant has undertaken, in perpetuity, not to exploit the singer’s personality or publicity rights through the handle ‘Sonu Nigam’ per se on X, or by using his photograph or likeness, for commercial or personal gain. He may continue operating the account under the handle ‘@SonuNigamSingh’, and the Consent Terms clarify that he remains free to use his legal name in personal identity documents. Recording the settlement, the court accepted the statements in the Consent Terms as undertakings given to it.15 Read More

Delhi High Court Restrains Hotel From Using ‘HOLIDAY INN’ Mark

Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining hotel operator Jerome Fernandes from using the name ‘HOTEL JEROME’S HOLIDAY INN’ or any deceptively similar mark. 16 In a suit filed by Six Continents Hotels, Inc., proprietor of the registered ‘HOLIDAY INN’ trademark, alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Mr Jerome. Six Continents submitted that it had held registration for the ‘HOLIDAY INN’ word mark since 1964, and had since obtained registrations for ‘HOLIDAY INN RESORT’ and various formative marks across relevant classes. It further submitted that ‘HOLIDAY INN’ had been designated a well-known trademark in India, and that other Benches of the Delhi High Court had previously protected the mark against unrelated entities. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that it would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim injunction sought were not granted. It restrained the defendant from using ‘HOTEL JEROME’S HOLIDAY INN’, ‘HOLIDAY INN’, or any deceptively similar mark as a trademark, trade name, corporate name or domain name. The court also directed the defendant to remove all advertisements and listings of the hotel from third-party platforms, including Goibibo, MakeMyTrip, TripAdvisor and Trivago, and to disclose any other online listings. The matter is next listed before the Joint Registrar on 19 November 2026.17 Read More

International Update

Australian Federal Court Halts Patent Publication Over Confidentiality Breach

The Federal Court of Australia, in an interlocutory decision has ordered the withdrawal of a PCT application and an associated provisional application before publication, on the ground that a former employee may have used his ex-employer’s confidential information in preparing the filings. EOS develops electro-optic technologies for the space and defence sectors. 18 The first respondent, Mr Pahlavani, was formerly employed by EOS and had provided EOS a pre-employment IP disclosure indicating potential overlap with his prior ideas. After resigning, he incorporated RedTail Technology Pty Ltd and filed a provisional application in December 2024, followed by a PCT application claiming priority from it, due for publication around 18 June 2026.

The court considered whether there was a serious question to be tried as to a contravention of section 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, which prohibits improper use of information gained during employment. It found substantial alignment between EOS’s internal reports and the subject matter of the PCT application, sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and rejected arguments that the Disclosure defeated it. On the balance of convenience, the court weighed the permanent loss of confidentiality on publication and EOS’s financial and reputational exposure as a defence contractor against the respondents’ loss of priority date, noting EOS could satisfy its undertaking as to damages while the respondents’ limited means made damages an inadequate remedy for them. 19 Read More

CAFC Requires NPE to Plead Licensee Compliance With Marking Statute

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement complaint filed by VDPP, LLC against Volkswagen Group of America 20, Inc. A non-practicing entity, had sued over U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, relating to electrically controlled spectacles, alleging infringement through Volkswagen’s surround-view camera systems. The central legal question was whether VDPP, having previously licensed the patent to eleven defendants through settlement agreements, was required to plead their compliance with the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. Section 287(a), to preserve a claim for pre-suit damages after the patent had expired. The court held that a settlement agreement licensing a patent remains a license for marking purposes, and that VDPP’s assertion that it had no products of its own to mark, being an NPE, did not excuse it from pleading that its licensees had complied or that it had made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance. 21 Read More

Christian Metal Band Sues Netflix Over ‘KPop Demon Hunters’

Christian metal band Demon Hunter, through its corporate entity Hyde Lane, has sued Netflix, Netflix Studios and concert promoter AEG Presents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition arising from Netflix’s animated franchise ‘KPop Demon Hunters’. 22 The complaint states that Demon Hunter was formed roughly 25 years ago and has continuously released albums, toured and sold merchandise under its registered trademark since then. It alleges that ‘KPop Demon Hunters’, released in 2025 and now the subject of merchandise, a soundtrack, and a forthcoming world concert tour launching with AEG in 2027, has expanded from a film into a music, merchandise and live-events brand that now overlaps substantially with Demon Hunter’s own business, creating a likelihood of confusion. The band argues that prefacing ‘Demon Hunters’ with the generic term ‘KPop’ does not overcome that likelihood. The band seeks an order restraining the defendants from using the ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ name in connection with music, merchandise and live entertainment, together with unspecified damages and a jury trial. Netflix has stated the allegations are without merit and that it will defend the suit vigorously. Read More

D.C. Circuit Dismisses Music Choice’s Challenge to Royalty Board Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Music Choice v. Copyright Royalty Board, has dismissed a petition for review filed by Music Choice challenging a Copyright Royalty Board ruling on the meaning of ‘Gross Proceeds’ under the regulation governing royalties for its Business Services. The legal question before the court was jurisdictional i.e whether the Board’s ruling was a reviewable ‘determination’ under 17 U.S.C. Section 803(c), issued by a ‘participant’ under Section 803(b)(2) who would be ‘bound’ by it, as required by Section 803(d)(1). It was held none of these conditions was satisfied. The ruling was not an ‘amendment’ correcting a ‘technical or clerical error’ since it resolved a substantive ambiguity rather than a scrivener’s error, and it was not issued in the form Section 803(c)(4) requires. Music Choice had also not participated in a proceeding under Section 803(b)(2), since the Board never published notice of one. Finally, the ruling could not ‘bind’ Music Choice, since the Board can only bind parties through an adopted settlement agreement or a determination issued after a hearing, neither of which occurred here. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the underlying royalty dispute to be resolved by the district court where SoundExchange’s suit remains pending. Read More

Copyright Office Finalizes Easier Registration Rules for Fast-Moving News Websites

The U.S. Copyright Office issued a final rule amending its Group Registration of Updates to a News Website program, making it easier for frequently updated news sites to register their content as a collective work rather than filing separately for every update. 23 Effective immediately, the rule refines the definition of an eligible ‘news website’ as one primarily designed to be a source of written information on current events, whether local, national, or international, and it requires that the site cover diverse subject matter, focus mainly on reporting current events, and update its content regularly. The program, first introduced in July 2024, lets qualifying sites register using representative samples of their content instead of submitting complete website copies for every update, and the Office said the amendment is meant to simplify administration of the program for news publishers and other rights holders who rely on it. Read more here.

  1. IP India, Draft Manual of Trade Marks Practice & Procedure, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (June 30, 2026). ↩︎
  2. Draft Manual of Patent Practice & Procedure, Version 4.0 (2026), Office of the CGPDTM, Government of India, ↩︎
  3. FreeElective Network Private Limited v. M/s Matrimony.com Limited, OSA(CAD) No. 159 of 2022, 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 230. ↩︎
  4. Riya Rathore, Madras High Court Restrains Matrimony.com From Using ‘Jodii’ Mark For Matchmaking App, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 15, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/madras-high-court-restrains-matrimonycom-from-using-jodii-mark-for-matchmaking-app-545954 . ↩︎
  5. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Emami Limited & Ors., F.M.A.T. No. 56 of 2026, 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 198. ↩︎
  6. Riya Rathore, Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Temporary Injunction Against Sun Pharma Over Emami’s ‘Zandu Balm’ Disparagement Suit, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 18, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/calcutta-high-court-sets-aside-temporary-injunction-against-sun-pharma-over-emamis-zandu-balm-disparagement-suit-546241 . ↩︎
  7. Novex Communications Private Limited v. Next Act Productions Private Limited & Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 28850 of 2026 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 28842 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aug. 20, 2026). ↩︎
  8. Parle Agro Private Limited v. Varun Beverages Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 897/2026, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 863. ↩︎
  9. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Holds Varun Beverages’ ‘SMOOTH’ Deceptively Similar To ‘SMOODH’, Restrains Use, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 24, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-temporarily-restrains-varun-beverages-from-using-smooth-mark-in-parle-agro-smoodh-trademark-suit-547062. ↩︎
  10. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. M/S Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 856. ↩︎
  11. HC Rules in Favour of DRL in Trademark Row with Razenta, ETPharma, The Economic Times, https://pharma.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/pharma-industry/hc-rules-in-favour-of-drl-in-trademark-row-with-razenta/133390850. ↩︎
  12. Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited, SLP(C) 28489/2026, Supreme Court of India (Aug. 20, 2026). ↩︎
  13. Kirit Singhania, Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Holding Unlicensed IPRS Music In Hotels Is Copyright Infringement, LiveLaw Biz (Aug. 20, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/top-stories/supreme-court-stays-calcutta-hc-order-that-held-playing-iprs-owned-music-in-hotel-rooms-without-licence-is-copyright-infringement-546615 . ↩︎
  14. Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh & Ors., COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 20577 OF 2025. ↩︎
  15. Riya Rathore, Sonu Nigam Namesake Agrees Before Bombay High Court To Stop Using Singer’s Name On Social Media, LiveLaw Biz (August 17, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/personality-rights/sonu-nigam-namesake-agrees-before-bombay-high-court-to-stop-using-singers-name-on-social-media-546081. ↩︎
  16. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Mr. Jerome Fernandes, CS(COMM) 887/2026. ↩︎
  17. Riya Rathore, Delhi High Court Restrains ‘HOTEL JEROME’S HOLIDAY INN’ From Using ‘HOLIDAY INN’ Trademark, LiveLaw Biz (August 21, 2026), https://www.livelawbiz.com/trademark/delhi-high-court-temporarily-restrains-hotel-operator-from-using-holiday-inn-mark-546858. ↩︎
  18. EOS Defence Systems Pty Limited v. Pahlavani, [2026] FCA 688. ↩︎
  19. Dr Claire Gregg, Australian court orders withdrawal of patent applications prior to publication, The IPKat (August 19, 2026), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/08/australian-court-orders-withdrawal-of.html. ↩︎
  20. VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2024-2226 (Fed. Cir.). ↩︎
  21. Eileen McDermott, CAFC Says NPE Must Show Licensees Complied with Patent Marking Provision, IPWatchdog (August 19, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/19/cafc-says-npe-must-show-licensees-complied-with-patent-marking-provision/. ↩︎
  22. CNN Wire Staff, Netflix sued over ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ by Christian metal band, CNN (August 21, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/21/entertainment/kpop-demon-hunters-band-lawsuit-hnk. ↩︎
  23. U.S. Copyright Office, Group Registration of Updates to a News Website: Final Rule, NewsNet Issue 1091 (Aug. 13, 2026), https://copyright.gov/newsnet/2026/1091.html ↩︎

Tags

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles