Injunction or Copyright Strike: Examining the DHC Order in ANI v Dynamite News

/ By / Copyright

The Delhi High Court’s refusal to re-block Dynamite News’ YouTube channel exposes the litigation strategy prevalent against digital news platforms. Analysing the decision, Md. Thahir Sulaiman assesses the limits of asserting copyright and trademark claims through a combination of court proceedings and YouTube’s takedown regime and explains the implications these moves have in curbing free speech. Thahir is a third year BALLB (Hons) student from the National Law School of India University, with interests in corporate law and technology law. […]

Injunction or Copyright Strike: Examining the DHC Order in ANI v Dynamite News Read More »

Redefining the Digital Perimeter: The Delhi High Court’s Expansive Stance on Copyright Jurisdiction in Zee Entertainment v. Mohalla Tech 

/ By / Copyright

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Mohalla Tech Pvt. Ltd. revisits the perennial question of territorial jurisdiction in copyright infringement suits. Analysing the decision, Arshiya Gupta highlights how the Court appears to depart from its own recent reasoning in Vikrant Chemco, prompting closer scrutiny of how the cause of action is assessed in online copyright infringement cases. Arshiya is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi, with a keen inclination towards PIL, IPR,

Redefining the Digital Perimeter: The Delhi High Court’s Expansive Stance on Copyright Jurisdiction in Zee Entertainment v. Mohalla Tech  Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: “Instant” Karma? Delhi High Court Flags Suppression of Material Facts in the Instant Bollywood Dispute

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by Pranjali Bhatt. Pranjali is a third-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Law University Delhi, with a keen interest in trademark and copyright law.] Can a court still grant interim relief after holding that the petitioner suppressed relevant and material facts? The Delhi High Court(DHC) recently responded to this question in Mandeep Singh v. Shabir Momin & Ors, by granting the petitioner, Mandeep Singh, founder of ‘INSTANT BOLLYWOOD’, interim relief despite finding suppression, after imposing

SpicyIP Tidbit: “Instant” Karma? Delhi High Court Flags Suppression of Material Facts in the Instant Bollywood Dispute Read More »

Drawing the Line on What a Foreign Court Can Ask: Madras High Court Pushes Back on U.S. Letters Rogatory in the Softgel v Pfizer Appeal

/ By / Patent

The Madras High Court’s decision in Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Pfizer Inc. revisits the limits of cross-border judicial cooperation in patent litigation. Tharun Tomy analyses the Division Bench judgement and notes that the ruling draws a clear line on when Indian courts may refuse assistance to foreign courts seeking evidence through Letters Rogatory, while also pointing out a few misses in this otherwise well-reasoned order. Tharun is an advocate and PhD candidate at Inter University Centre for IPR Studies,

Drawing the Line on What a Foreign Court Can Ask: Madras High Court Pushes Back on U.S. Letters Rogatory in the Softgel v Pfizer Appeal Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (22.12.2025)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles! As the year draws to a close, we hope you’re finding some time to relax and explore — whether it’s on vacation or just a quick getaway. While you’re on the move, catch up on our latest SpicyIP podcasts and dive into this week’s Bell of the Week, a spotlight on something truly worth exploring. Also please note that the deadline for the SpicyIP-Jhana Blog Post Competition is coming close – 30th

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (22.12.2025) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 15-December 21)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

This weekly review is authored by Vikram Raj Nanda. From unpacking the ‘laconic’ order of the IPO in Tapas Chatterjee, to the resurfacing of data exclusivity debates amidst the India–US FTA talks, and flagging trade secret concerns in the Sanchar Saathi application – this week had it all. Also, the 11th Episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition is now live on the YouTube Channel. In this Episode Sonisha sits with Mr. Ashwani Balayan where they talk about his

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 15-December 21) Read More »

It’s the Final Countdown! Submissions Close this Sunday (December 21) for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition 2025

/ By / Opportunities

The clock is ticking for the written submissions for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition on Intellectual Property & Innovation 2025, jointly organised by SpicyIP and CIPAM, DPIIT. With enthusiastic registration of over 140 teams across the country, the competition has seen a strong and encouraging response so far. This is a quick reminder that Sunday, December 21 (11:59 PM), is the last day to submit your written submissions. If you’ve been refining arguments, polishing recommendations, or putting final touches

It’s the Final Countdown! Submissions Close this Sunday (December 21) for the 1st National Policy Brief Competition 2025 Read More »

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller 

/ By / Patent

Image from here The recent judgment of the Division Bench in Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Tapas) had caught the headlines for taking the Indian Patent Office (IPO) to task for issuing an unreasoned order or in the words of the Court a ‘laconic’ order (‘Laconic’ means –using or involving the use of a minimum of words: concise to the point of seeming rude or mysterious).  The word itself has an interesting etymology tracing its origins

When Orders don’t Speak: Analysing Tapas Chatterjee vs Controller  Read More »

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis? 

/ By / Patent

Part II of the Novo v. Dr. Reddy judgement will shift the spotlight to prior claiming under sec. 64(1)(a). The inspiration to write this post came from a 2013 guest post by Darren Smyth, who was kind enough to have an hour long discussion with me on his post. The comments on that post, itself, are a trove of treasure with a long back-and-forth between Smyth and Prof. Basheer.  In that post, Smyth, criticizing the Novartis v. UOI ruling, made a crucial point – “What

Part II- Disentangling Infringement and Disclosure in Novo: Should we continue to Celebrate Novartis?  Read More »

Data Exclusivity Debate Resurfaces Amidst US-FTA Talks, Evidence Still Missing

/ By / Data Exclusivity, Drug Regulation

(Long post ahead!) A Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) notice has triggered fresh discussions on a data exclusivity regime for pharmaceutical products in India. The notice dated October 8 invites comments ‘to ensure a level playing field in new drug approval’. The notice reasons that  applicants obtaining approval of a new drug for the first time in the country based on clinical trial and test data do it at a higher regulatory compliance cost compared to subsequent applicants who

Data Exclusivity Debate Resurfaces Amidst US-FTA Talks, Evidence Still Missing Read More »

Scroll to Top