Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd has sued Blinkit and Nykaa in separate lawsuits, alleging the brands used copyrighted content in social media campaigns without permission. The cases could have implications beyond the two brands, forcing marketers to rethink where the line lies between clever cultural references and copyright infringement.
Mint explains the disputes, why they matter and what they mean for brands.
Why has Zee sued Blinkit and Nykaa?
Zee alleges that Blinkit and Nykaa used its copyrighted content in promotional social media campaigns without obtaining required commercial licences.
In Nykaa’s case, Zee has accused the beauty retailer of using songs from its catalogue to promote products. Nykaa has since taken down the Instagram reels identified in the lawsuit, but Zee is seeking ₹2 crore in damages.
Zee has filed a similar suit against Blinkit, which has been summoned for a 14 August hearing. The cases could clarify how brands can use copyrighted material in social media marketing.
How does copyright law distinguish personal and commercial use?
The Zee lawsuits, filed before the Delhi High Court, hinge on the distinction between personal and commercial use of copyrighted content.
Individuals may use copyrighted music, film clips or images on social media, including through platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, where the platforms have licensing arrangements with copyright owners. These generally cover personal, non-commercial use, and do not automatically extend to businesses.
When brands use such content for advertising or marketing, they may need a separate licence from the copyright owner.
Is this a first-of-its-kind case in India?
Indian courts have dealt with copyright disputes involving films, music and television for decades, but lawsuits targeting brands over copyrighted material in social media marketing remain uncommon.
Sony Music Entertainment, for instance, has previously taken action against Myntra over unauthorized use of its copyrighted songs in promotional social media content. Most copyright disputes have traditionally involved piracy, broadcasting rights or unauthorized reproduction rather than viral digital campaigns.
The Zee cases are significant as brands increasingly draw on memes, trending songs and popular culture to engage audiences.
Where is the line between a meme and infringement?
There is no single legal test; much depends on how the content is used and whether a substantial part of the original work is reproduced.
Simply referring to a popular dialogue, character or cultural moment may not amount to infringement, said Sonam Chandwani, managing partner at KS Legal & Associates. Genuine parody or satire that comments on or transforms the original work may also be protected.
But when brands use recognizable characters, dialogues or visuals primarily to market their products without permission or meaningful transformation, their legal defence becomes weaker. “Courts are likely to look at the overall impression created rather than isolated elements in deciding whether the line has been crossed,” she said.
What does this mean for brands?
Where a campaign relies heavily on identifiable copyrighted material or intellectual property associated with another brand or production house, obtaining a licence is often the safest course, Chandwani said.
Even where a legal defence may ultimately succeed, litigation can be expensive, disruptive and damaging to a brand’s reputation. If courts side with Zee, brands may increasingly turn to original content rather than relying on viral trends.
More broadly, the disputes underline that intellectual property compliance is becoming an integral part of marketing strategy, rather than an issue to be addressed only after a campaign goes live.