2024

Reconceptualizing Trademark Protection in the Digital Age: A Proposal for Reform in Response to Google Ads’ Policy- Part II

/ By / Trademark

Continuing the discussion (see here for Part I) on the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court’s 2023 Keywords decisions, Malak Sheth critiques the Courts’ approach, arguing that use of a trademark in digital world cannot be viewed from the same lens of assessing their use in the physical world. Malak is a third year law student from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. For the interested readers, the Delhi High Court’s division bench decision in Google v. DRS […]

Reconceptualizing Trademark Protection in the Digital Age: A Proposal for Reform in Response to Google Ads’ Policy- Part II Read More »

Reconceptualizing Trademark Protection in the Digital Age: A Proposal for Reform in Response to Google Ads’ Policy- Part I

/ By / Trademark

Critiquing the 2023 decisions on Keywords by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, we are pleased to bring to you this two part post by Malak Sheth. In part I of the post, he critiques the Supreme Court’s observation in MakeMyTrip India Private Limited v. Google LLC on likelihood of confusion among the consumers. Malak is a third year law student from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. In case any reader is interested, this order has

Reconceptualizing Trademark Protection in the Digital Age: A Proposal for Reform in Response to Google Ads’ Policy- Part I Read More »

Leaving Out the Working Examples?

/ By / Patent

A development that patent lawyers are surely going to find interesting, on March 13, the Delhi High Court, in Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v. The Controller General of Patents & Designs, clarified that a working example does not define the patent’s scope. Raising some concerns with this finding of the Court, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Dhruv Vatsyayan. Dhruv is a final year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University,

Leaving Out the Working Examples? Read More »

Announcing the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law

/ By / Opportunities

Celebrating our founder Prof. (Dr.) Shamnad Basheer’s 48th birth anniversary, SpicyIP is thrilled to announce the 2024 edition of the Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law! As many would know, his intellectual passion and incessant curiosity continues to inspire and motivate the thousands of lives that he touched. The essay competition continues in this spirit, aiming to foster a culture of relentless inquiry and growth, as well as to celebrate his memory and his legacy of outstanding scholarship.

Announcing the 2024 Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition on Intellectual Property Law Read More »

Law Commission’s 289th report- Trade Secret and Economic Espionage

/ By / COVID-19, Patent, Trade Secret

The Law Commission (LC) recently released its report no. 289- “Trade Secret and Economic Espionage”. (Part 1, Part 2and Part 3) In this post, I will discuss the key elements of the report and the draft bill proposed by the LC. First, I will analyze the provision on Compulsory Licensing of Trade Secrets included in the bill and discuss its upside and downside in the current form. Second, I point out the key provisions in the bill which indicate a shift from

Law Commission’s 289th report- Trade Secret and Economic Espionage Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 6- May 12)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the post on DHC’S observation in Sun Pharma v. Dabur India. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlight of the Week Whose Serve is it Anyway? Assessing the Sun Pharma v. Dabur Finding on the Applicants’ Obligation to Serve Counter-Statements The DHC’s observation about the Applicant’s responsibility to serve the Counter Statements instead of the TM Registry is perhaps

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 6- May 12) Read More »

Whose Serve is it Anyway? Assessing the Sun Pharma v. Dabur Finding on the Applicants’ Obligation to Serve Counter-Statements

/ By / Trademark

One of the seemingly under-discussed aspects of the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sun Pharma v. Dabur India is the Court’s passing comments on the responsibility to serve the Counter-Statement in trademark prosecution. Passed on February 9, 2024, the High Court Ruling clarified that the deadline to file evidence in opposition cannot be extended by the discretion of the Registrar. However, in doing so the Court also interpreted that the duty to serve the Counter-Statement falls on the Applicant instead

Whose Serve is it Anyway? Assessing the Sun Pharma v. Dabur Finding on the Applicants’ Obligation to Serve Counter-Statements Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 29- May 05)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summaries of posts on the DHC’s decision in Natco v. Novartis appeal and the MHC’s decision in Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst. Controller of Patents. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.  Highlights of the Week Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination? The MHC in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs clarified the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 29- May 05) Read More »

Meme pic of Yoda with caption "Here we go again you say. Use the Force to change it you must."

Natco v Novartis 2024: Delhi High Court’s Novartis Moment & Indian Patent Law’s Déjà Vu

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court, on 24th April, passed an order that our patent law enthusiast readers will be very interested in! Reviving, (and at least temporarily settling!) questions around what is therapeutic efficacy under Section 3(d) and the distinctions between coverage and disclosure, the 86 page judgement is an interesting one to go through! We’re pleased to bring you this guest post by Shivam Kaushik, who takes us on a quick tour of the order, highlighting points of particular interest.

Natco v Novartis 2024: Delhi High Court’s Novartis Moment & Indian Patent Law’s Déjà Vu Read More »

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination?

/ By / Patent

Discussing the Madras High Court’s Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst. Controller of Patents decision on the role of PSITA in determining non obviousness, we are pleased to bring to you this post by Kevin Preji. Kevin is a second-year law student at NLSIU Bangalore and wrote this post while interning with us. His passion lies in understanding the intersection of economics and public health with intellectual property rights. His previous posts can be accessed here. Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination? Read More »

Scroll to Top