A Course Correction? What Rangaraj and Kamal Haasan Get Right about Personality Rights

/ By / Trademark

In a marked departure from prior personality-rights jurisprudence, the Madras High Court in T. Rangaraj v. Joy Cridzila and Kamal Hassan v. Neeyevidai seems to recalibrate the threshold for injunctive relief by tethering personality rights to demonstrable commercial misappropriation rather than mere unauthorised reference by the defendants. Arjun Ishaan analyses these orders and highlights how, by separating subjective reputational grievance from enforceable legal injury, the Court restores doctrinal discipline to an area increasingly prone to over-expansive claims. Arjun is a […]

A Course Correction? What Rangaraj and Kamal Haasan Get Right about Personality Rights Read More »

A Terrorization of the Terroir

/ By / Geographical Indication

As climate change alters the taste, texture, and viability of iconic regional crops, the very idea of terroir is under strain. This raises a pressing legal question: when geography changes, can Geographical Indicators afford to remain static? Responding to this question, in his submission for the SpicyIP jhana Blogpost Competition, Rudra Pandey proposes solutions to the Indian GI regime. Rudra is a B.A. LL.B (Hons.) student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala. He describes himself as “a part-time law

A Terrorization of the Terroir Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (19.01.2026)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles! We’re kicking things off with fresh uploads on SpicyIP TV, including the Book Review Symposium on Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia: Law, Development and Practice (Bloomsbury, 2025) edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, with Shama Mahajan, Akshat Agrawal  and Prof. Ishupal Singh Kang as guest speakers (recording available on LinkedIn and YouTube). If you haven’t had a chance to watch yet, consider this your nudge and plenty more that’s waiting for you on the channel.

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (19.01.2026) Read More »

Call for Submissions NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII) [Submit by March 1, 2026]

/ By / Opportunities, Publication

The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, is inviting submissions for the NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII). Interested authors can send their submissions by March 1, 2026. For more details, please read their call for papers below. Call for Submissions: NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII) [Submit by March 1, 2026] The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS),

Call for Submissions NUALS Intellectual Property Law Review (Vol. VII) [Submit by March 1, 2026] Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 12 – January 18)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

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 »

Biosimilarity is not Infringement- Full Stop

/ By / Patent

On Monday, a DB of the DHC allowed Zydus to manufacture and market a biosimilar of the drug Nivolumab, marketed as Opdivo. The DB order is well-reasoned, providing a clear demarcation between infringement analysis and biosimilarity. Nivolumab, which is at the centre of the controversy, is an anti-cancer medication which increases the ability of the immune system to kill cancer cells.(here) I have previously explain how this drug works here. The EMA website states that Opdivo has “has been shown to benefit patients

Biosimilarity is not Infringement- Full Stop Read More »

Staying the Numbers: Damages Quantification and the Limits of “Exceptionality” after Lifestyle

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s decision to stay execution of a damages decree in M/s Pearl Engineering v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. raises uneasy questions about when money decrees can be put on hold. Aafreen Saraf argues that by relying on doubts in damages computation, the Court stretches the Supreme Court’s narrow “exceptional cases” standard reaffirmed in Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon Technologies. Aafreen is a third-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata. She

Staying the Numbers: Damages Quantification and the Limits of “Exceptionality” after Lifestyle Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Caution! Trade Marks Protection through Online Service Providers

/ By / Others, Trademark

Through a public notice issued on January 7, 2026, the Office of the Controller General Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (“CGPDTM”) cautioned popular online registration services including “makeinindia.com”, “cleartax.in”, “startupwala.com” against advertising and solicitation of prospective applicants or clients through digital and online platforms. These entities reach out to stakeholders, offering assistance in trademark registration (brand names, logos, slogans, icons, etc.) through online services. The CGPDTM clarified that the abovementioned entities are neither “Registered Trade Mark Agents” nor “Advocates” under

SpicyIP Tidbit: Caution! Trade Marks Protection through Online Service Providers Read More »

Nippon v. Controller: DHC Sets the Standard for What Constitutes “Proof of Right”

/ By / Patent

Recently, in Nippon v. Controller, the Delhi High Court intervened to rein in an unduly rigid view of proof of right adopted by the Patent Office. Explaining the judgement, Dipti examines how the Court dealt with proof of right, employer–employee ownership, and the premature invocation of Section 68, and what these moves mean for patent filing practice in India. Dipti is a penultimate-year student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, with a strong interest in technology and intellectual property law.

Nippon v. Controller: DHC Sets the Standard for What Constitutes “Proof of Right” Read More »

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

/ By / Copyright

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 »

Scroll to Top