Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 5-October 11)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

From notable orders of the past week to key national and international IP developments, here’s the latest edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments! Posts this Week The Innovation Brief, NLU Delhi, is inviting blog post submissions on the ‘Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA’. The last date to share submissions is October 20, 2026. Interested readers can read the call for submissions below. Case

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 5-October 11) Read More »

Ribociclib: Access to Medicine Collides with Patent, Price and Policy

/ By / Drug Regulation, Overlaps in IP, Patent

In this co-authored post, Ambika and Rishabh break down the recent Kerala High Court ruling on government use of patented inventions under Section 100 and situate it in the broader context of other Ribociclib patents and pending litigations that will impact the drug’s access; all this, at a time when patent enforcement and drug pricing rules might be changing. The judgment’s epilogue references popular cinema for recall value (see pg 56 here), but the real blockbuster of this story is

Ribociclib: Access to Medicine Collides with Patent, Price and Policy Read More »

Call for Submissions:’Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA'(Deadline: October 20, 2026)

/ By / Opportunities

The Innovation Brief, NLU Delhi, is inviting blog post submissions on the ‘Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA’. The last date to share submissions is October 20, 2026. Interested readers can read the call for submissions below:- Call for Submissions: ‘Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA’. (Deadline: October 20, 2026) About Innovation Brief The Innovation Brief is a student-led platform at National Law University Delhi that seeks to

Call for Submissions:’Impact of the Intersection of Innovation and Access by the EU-India FTA'(Deadline: October 20, 2026) Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (06.10.2026)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles. As always, we’ve rounded up a mix of developments, opportunities, and thoughtful reads from across the IP world along with a Bell of the Week that’s well worth revisiting. Bell of the Week: What Does Justice Have to Do With IP?  Some organisations work to change the law. Some work to make the law easier to find, understand or use. And some make us pause and ask a more fundamental question:

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (06.10.2026) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Beating the Monday blues after a long weekend, here we are with the first Weekly Review of October, featuring a post on Section 124, case summaries of orders passed by different High Courts last week, and updates on other national and international IP developments. Anything we’re missing? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? The interplay between trademark infringement

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4) Read More »

Logo for Marvel Studios' series "What If" with the title written in red with black background

Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

/ By / Trademark

The interplay between trademark infringement proceedings and non-use cancellation proceedings under Sections 47 and 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 raises a deceptively simple question: can a Section 47 proceeding trigger a stay of an infringement suit? With the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts taking divergent approaches, Arushi Bisht and Snehal Singh examine the statutory and practical implications of treating “rectification proceedings” under Section 124 as encompassing non-use cancellation proceedings. Arushi Bisht is an Intellectual Property Attorney with four

Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (29.09.2026)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles. As always, we’ve rounded up a mix of developments, opportunities, and thoughtful reads from across the IP world along with a Bell of the Week that’s well worth revisiting. Bell of the Week: When You Don’t Know the Name of the Trademark  Every now and then, I come across a tool that makes me wonder how we managed without it.  The WIPO Global Brand Database is one of those tools. You can

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (29.09.2026) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh, WBNUJS IP Chair Professor Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh’s work in intellectual property took him from laboratories and corporate boardrooms to

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September) Read More »

Logo of Zara with the word "Zara" written in black.

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2)

/ By / Trademark

The Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA ruling settles one question while leaving another lurking beneath it. A formal declaration, the Court holds, is not necessary to invoke Section 11(2). But if well-known status can be established through individual proceedings, what happens to the certainty that Rule 124 was meant to provide? Harjas Singh Gulati writes on this development below. Harjas is a Trainee Associate at ALG India Law Offices LLP. He is interested in Intellectual property matters along with

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2) Read More »

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement

/ By / Copyright

The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan‘. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely. Vanshika Verma writes on this development below. Vanshika is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, with an interest in commercial law, IPR, technology law and policy. TCRC

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement Read More »

Scroll to Top