Copyright

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 2 – February 8)

Into the second week of February, with formal comments from our bloggers on the DPIIT’s proposed “One Nation One License One Payment” framework for GenAI and Copyright. A post on an industrial drama written in 1847 bursting the myth of the free-market society, and another post on the recent concept note by the DPIIT proposing reforms to India’s design law. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (February 2 – February 8) Read More »

Comments to the DPIIT on their GenAI – Copyright Working Paper 1

As most in the IP world would’ve noticed over the last two months, there’s been much discussion around the Working Paper on Generative AI and Copyright (Part 1), with its ambitious subtitle “One Nation One License One Payment – Balancing AI Innovation and Copyright”. The 125 page report (available here) is focused on ‘the legal issues relating to the use of copyright-protected works as training data for GenAI systems’, while part 2 (yet to be published) will focus on ‘the

Comments to the DPIIT on their GenAI – Copyright Working Paper 1 Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 26 – February 1)

Entering February by announcing the second edition of the SpicyIP Summer School in 2026! A three part book review of “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti. Case summaries and IP developments from the country and the globe in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week Announcing the Second Edition of the SpicyIP Summer School (2026) After an incredible

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 26 – February 1) Read More »

(Part III) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

Reviewing Part III of the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia”, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, Prof. Ishupal Singh Kang engages with how institutions, courts, and practices shape IP governance beyond doctrinal boundaries, bringing questions of gender, access, expertise, and social justice into the frame. Reading the chapters in conversation rather than isolation, Prof. Kang reflects on innovation-centric assumptions, the politics of IP expertise, and the role of South Asian historical narratives in re-imagining IP law and its

(Part III) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

(Part II) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

Continuing the discussion on the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, Akshat Agrawal reviews part II of the book (Intellectual Property Developments in South Asia) and examines how South Asian IP regimes are shaped and constrained by the imperative to align with TRIPS, often at a high developmental, cultural, and public-interest cost. Discussing the chapters focusing on Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Akshat highlights how legal transplants, trade pressures, and local

(Part II) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

(Part I) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

“Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti (Reader in Law at the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast), is a timely and important intervention that brings together scholars from across the region to examine how IP law is shaped by local legal cultures, policy priorities, and socio-economic realities. Covering India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, the book speaks directly to concerns at the heart of our readership and holds particular significance for us,

(Part I) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 19 – January 25)

This Weekly Review is authored by Md. Sabeeh Ahmad. Entering the final week of January with the announcement of Pre-finalists for 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP & Innovation! A post on the recent Zydus v. ER Squibb clarifying biosimilarity is not infringement. A post on the Madras HC’s decision in Rangaraj and Kamal Hassan, shifting India’s personality-rights jurisprudence. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 19 – January 25) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 12 – January 18)

A post critiquing the Bombay HC judgment in Anand Khosla on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Does the DHC’s reaffirmation in Zydus v. Controller that patent examination and pre-grant opposition operate in different parallel raise concerns about natural justice? A post discussing the same. And another post examining DHC’s decision in Pearl Engineering v. Philips concerning stay of money decrees. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 12 – January 18) Read More »

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem

In Anand Khosla v. Punam Kumari Singh, the Bombay High Court quietly retreats from the Supreme Court’s settled position on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Analysing the decision, Aditya Bhargava argues that it misapplies the rights in rem/personam distinction while considering the arbitrability of IP disputes under Vidya Drolia, and improperly legitimises the splitting of causes of action. Aditya is a fourth year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. [Long post ahead] The Unresolved Code: Anand

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem Read More »

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation?

Image from here. The story of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and its tryst with the Copyright Society framework continues. Readers will recall that in April 2025, a division bench (DB) of the Delhi HC in Azure v PPL had held that PPL cannot issue or grant licences for sound recordings without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society (Interested folks can refer to my detailed post for the ruling’s analysis). In its directions,

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation? Read More »

Scroll to Top