Room Service, Rates, Licenses: IPRS v Hotel Appolo

/ By / Copyright, Others

You switch on the TV in a hotel room, and you have entered into a licensing quagmire! Does a hotel need to pay royalties to copyright societies for the content in the television sets of their guest rooms?  The recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited deals with this question. The dispute began in the District Court of Darjeeling, which refused to grant IPRS an interim injunction against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited. In an order […]

Room Service, Rates, Licenses: IPRS v Hotel Appolo Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.09.2026)

/ 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: 30 Years of the WIPO Internet Treaties What did copyright law look like when the Internet arrived?  This week’s Bell takes us back to 20 December 1996, when the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.09.2026) Read More »

Copyright Strikes and Free Speech: Rethinking Automated Takedowns on Social Media

/ By / Copyright

The Delhi High Court (“DHC”), in the past month, has seen multiple ongoing cases where social media intermediaries’ copyright strike mechanism has come into question (see here and here). With social media platforms now serving as a principal forum for public expression, and a handful of platforms controlling access to much of this speech, the consequences of automated content removal extend beyond private copyright disputes. Under such mechanisms, social media intermediaries automatically take down allegedly infringing content merely based on

Copyright Strikes and Free Speech: Rethinking Automated Takedowns on Social Media Read More »

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable?

/ By / Patent

In Part I of the post, I discussed the contents of the Guidelines and how using AI may cognitively affect the officers while examining a patent application.  From Personal Satisfaction to Institutional Accountability: Where does the Buck Stop? Now, I understand that some of the arguments in Part I are targeted towards the idea of using AI in patent examination and not the Guidelines per se. However, despite all the caveats for human oversight, the Guidelines state that the concerned

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable? Read More »

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination?

/ By / Patent

The CGPDTM issued new guidelines on August 7, this time to regulate AI use in the patent examination process. In a 16-page document followed by annexures of illustrative examples and a checklist for the officers, the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures seek to maintain a balance between harnessing the benefits of using AI tools in patent examination while ensuring that their use does not compromise the technical, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions of the Office. 

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30) Read More »

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller Read More »

Image of Mr. P H Kurian in a peach coloured shirt

Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian (1959-2026)

/ By / Others

It is with great sorrow that we share that the Indian IP fraternity lost one of its most remarkable administrators, Mr. P. H. Kurian, yesterday after a battle with cancer. A 1986-batch IAS officer, Mr. Kurian donned various hats throughout his illustrious career, as District Collector, Labour Commissioner, Managing Director of the Kerala State Industries Development Corporation (KSIDC), Principal Secretary to the Department of Industry, Kerala, Additional Chief Secretary to the Kerala Government, and Chairman of the Kerala Real Estate

Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian (1959-2026) Read More »

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition

/ By / Patent

A recent Bombay High Court decision adds an important procedural dimension to the growing judicial scrutiny of how Controllers assess obviousness. Maneesha Gupta explains how in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the problem was not the absence of evidence for common general knowledge, but the Controller’s reliance on evidence that was never disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revoking the patent. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition Read More »

Black-and-white logo of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), featuring a map of India with a spinning wheel at the centre, surrounded by Hindi text and the initials “KVIC,” with a Sanskrit motto below.

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences

/ By / Trademark

When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. What Follows a Breach?

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences Read More »

Scroll to Top