[Part III] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”

Continuing the discussion on an almost unending spate of personality rights filings (first part and second part), in the third part of the post, Aakanksha turns to fandom, fan merchandise, and fan participation in celebrification – and to some hopes for free speech uses of celebrity personality. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar (She/Her) is an independent researcher and academic. Since 2019, she has designed and taught a self-created elective course across law schools titled Comparative Celebrity Laws: Personality, Publicity and Free Speech

[Part III] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter” Read More »

[Part II] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”

In the first part of this three-part post, Aakanksha discussed the standard, overbroad prayers in almost every personality rights suit, and the August 2026 orders that have begun to dismantle them. In this second part, she examines the reasons for the concentration of these suits in the DHC and engages with the Court’s three questions in Aaradhya Bachchan. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar (She/Her) is an independent researcher and academic. Since 2019, she has designed and taught a self-created elective course across

[Part II] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter” Read More »

[Part I] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”

The Delhi High Court has been seeing what can be termed an almost unending spate of personality rights filings, but there’s now a fork in the road that recent orders over the past month are recognising. In this three-part post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar argues that “personality rights” in India is not a single cause of action but a salad platter of analytically distinct claims, and reads the August 2026 orders as the first sign that the platter is finally being

[Part I] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter” Read More »

Image of a box of KRYXANA Ribociclib 200 mg film-coated tablets, marked “For sale in India only.”

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today

[This post is authored by Rishabh Upadhyay. Rishabh is an LL.M. candidate at the Faculty of Law, Delhi University, having completed his undergraduate legal studies at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. His interest lies in intellectual property jurisprudence, with particular emphasis on Patent Law, Access to Medicines, and International Law.] The Kerala High Court is set to conduct the final hearing in the long-running Ribociclib litigation today. In July, I had written (Part I, Part II) on this

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today Read More »

Well-Known Marks: To Declare or Not to Declare?

Ordinarily, trademark protection is strongest in relation to the identical or similar goods or services for which a mark is registered. Some marks, however, acquire such a strong reputation that the law protects them even against use or registration for dissimilar goods and services. These are known as ‘well-known trademarks,’ and there is a new development concerning them. The Delhi High Court, in Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v Registrar of TMs, on 6th July 2026, ruled that an opponent can

Well-Known Marks: To Declare or Not to Declare? Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit- Paper Trail in IPRS v Hotel Appolo: Missing Caveat and the IPRS License

Last week, I wrote a post on a licensing quagmire covering the recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, which dealt with an important question of whether a hotel needs to take an IPRS license for cable TV to run in its hotel rooms. The Calcutta High Court said yes, and restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating musical and literary work owned by IPRS to guests through hotel-room television sets without a valid license, while the Supreme

SpicyIP Tidbit- Paper Trail in IPRS v Hotel Appolo: Missing Caveat and the IPRS License Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (31 August- 6 September)

Kicking off September with an exciting week featuring posts on the latest guidelines by the Patent Office on the use of AI in patent examination, copyright strikes, the Calcutta High Court order in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, the Copyright Office’s decision in the Thaler-Dabus case, and the Delhi High Court order in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Highlights of the Week Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision

SpicyIP Weekly Review (31 August- 6 September) Read More »

Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter

Introduction “With the internet, the question of ‘territorial’ jurisdiction gets complicated largely on account of the fact that the internet is borderless.” A sentiment raised by Justice Muralidhar in 2010 still rings true in 2026 (has perhaps turned more complicated). While the journey of determining jurisdiction has taken several turns since then, it has now reached a new one with Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living (I) Private Limited. The suit, filed in the DHC, sought a permanent injunction against

Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Pharma and Biotech Patent Application Guidelines (2026)

In the time of this oncoming monsoon, it feels like its raining draft guidelines from the Controller General’s office! The office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has released two new sets of draft guidelines today for the examination of patent applications related to pharmaceutical & biotechnology inventions. These draft guidelines are targeted towards streamlining the patenting procedures of healthcare inventions. All stakeholders invited to submit their comments or suggestions within 15 days from the date of

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on New Draft Pharma and Biotech Patent Application Guidelines (2026) Read More »

Jyothy Labs logo featuring a blue flower-like emblem with yellow accents, followed by the words “Jyothy Labs” in blue.

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur

At first glance, Jyothy Labs v. Dabur looks like a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of “NEEM” on toothpaste packaging. But beneath the favourable factual matrix lies a shakier doctrinal foundation, particularly on essential-feature protection, the descriptive–suggestive divide, and passing off. In this post, Harsh Kashyap examines how the Bombay High Court reached what may well be the right result on the facts, while questioning whether parts of its reasoning can safely travel beyond them. Harsh is a

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur Read More »

Scroll to Top