2024

Reminder: 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law

/ By / Opportunities

On Prof. Basheer’s 48th birth anniversary we announced the 2024 edition of the Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law. We cannot wait to read your submissions. Keep in mind, the deadline is just over 3 weeks away! [Edit: The deadline has not been extended to 28th July, 2024 (11:59 pm IST)] Please see below for the details: Submission Guidelines The details of the competition are as follows: Eligibility: The competition will be open to students currently enrolled in […]

Reminder: 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law Read More »

Irregularities in the Patent Examiner Recruitment Exams? DHC to Decide on the Allegations

/ By / Patent

On June 16, the much awaited results of the three phrased exams for the recruitment of Patent Examiners were declared by the National Testing Agency (NTA). Originally meant to recruit 553 Examiners, as per the results, the NTA has “provisionally” recruited 550 Examiners who will then be subjected to another round of verification by the Controlling Authority. In a trifecta of controversies for both the NTA and the Patent Examiner recruitment process, we have now learnt that a writ petition

Irregularities in the Patent Examiner Recruitment Exams? DHC to Decide on the Allegations Read More »

Secrets and Standards: Analaysing Pro-tem Securities in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART II]

/ By / Patent

This is Part II of the two-part post on the recent Delhi High Court (DHC) decisions on the InterDigital-Oppo SEP dispute. In Part I of the post (here), the single judge bench judgement on 31st May 2024 regarding confidentiality and disclosure of agreements for FRAND rate determination was focussed upon. On the same day, the Division Bench (DB) of the DHC consisting of J Vibhu Bakhru and J Tara Vitasta Ganju in Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v. InterDigital

Secrets and Standards: Analaysing Pro-tem Securities in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART II] Read More »

Secrets and Standards: Balancing the Confidentiality of SEPs in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART I]

/ By / Patent

In two significant judgements passed on May 31, a Single Bench and a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court have clarified certain nuances pertaining to Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in India (read more about SEPs here). Last month Swaraj and Praharsh, in their two-part post (read here and here), highlighted some problematic aspects of adjudication over SEP disputes in the country. Contrary to the extensive pro-patentee approach in that case (as pointed out by the authors there), the Courts

Secrets and Standards: Balancing the Confidentiality of SEPs in InterDigital v. Oppo [PART I] Read More »

​​Parody Under Fire: The Misuse of Ex-Parte Injunctions in Trademark Law to Curb Satire?

/ By / Trademark

On the recent Delhi High Court ex-parte injunction in favor of journalist Rajat Sharma against satirist Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, we are pleased to bring to you this post by SpicyIP intern Aarav Gupta, discussing the nominative fair use aspect here and the lack of interim injunction three factor assessment by the Court. Aarav is a third-year law student at National Law University, Delhi. He is passionate about geopolitics, foreign policy, international trade, and intellectual property and spends his time reading

​​Parody Under Fire: The Misuse of Ex-Parte Injunctions in Trademark Law to Curb Satire? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 10-June 16)

/ By / Copyright, Design, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the post on DHC’s decision in Forest Essentials v. Baby Forest. This and much more in last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week Initial Interest Confusion Clash: Forest Essentials Battles Baby Forest at the DHC Is it still trademark infringement if confusion regarding similar marks doesn’t carry on through to the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 10-June 16) Read More »

Initial Interest Confusion Clash: Forest Essentials Battles Baby Forest at the DHC

/ By / Trademark

Regarding the varying interpretation and understanding of the initial interest confusion test by a single judge bench and a division bench of the DHC in the recent Forest Essential v. Baby Forest case, we are pleased to present this post by SpicyIP intern Aditya Bhargava, critiquing the single judge’s interpretation of the doctrine. Aditya is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore. He is interested in intellectual property, AI regulation and tech law. His previous post can be accessed here.

Initial Interest Confusion Clash: Forest Essentials Battles Baby Forest at the DHC Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 3-June 9)

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark, Traditional Knowledge

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on DHC’s decision in Seagate v. Daichi, Genus-Species patents, and GI inspection mechanism in India. This and much more in last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week Genus-Species Disputes: Where From Here? Taking a look at some of the important decisions in genus-species patent cases, Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon discusses

SpicyIP Weekly Review (June 3-June 9) Read More »

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part II)

/ By / Trademark

In the previous post, I discussed the various findings of the court in the present case regarding exhaustion, removal and replacement of the original mark and the requirement of ‘full disclosure’. In this post, I will answer as to why the court held that removal and replacement of the original mark was prohibited u/s. 30(3). Then, I will discuss Prof. Kur’s article wherein she discusses the distinction between ‘substantial’ and ‘simple’ repair of a good and the implications of that in the

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part II) Read More »

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part I)

/ By / Trademark

The judgment in Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International delivered on 21st May 2024 by the Delhi HC has the potential to change how the ‘refurbishment industry’ in India works. The industry for resale of used products has been a part of several trademark litigations in the past. (here) As I discuss in this post, the refurbishment industry has several stakeholders involved. However, constant litigations threaten the growth and expansion of the industry (here). The findings in this judgement, however, promise to turn around

Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International: How to resell ‘refurbished’ goods under the Trademarks Act? (Part I) Read More »

Scroll to Top