Author name: Devika Agarwal

Devika is a Policy Analyst at Nasscom. She first started writing on Spicy IP in 2013 when she was awarded the Spicy IP Fellowship, which sparked her passion for writing on IP. Devika is interested in copyright and technology law.

Band Baaja Baaraat & Copyright

/ By / Copyright

Indian weddings are an expensive affair- a recent survey reports that 20% of all loans taken by young Indians in 2018-2019 was to fund their wedding expenses! It comes as some respite then for betrothed couples that the Indian Copyright Office has recently clarified (in a Public Notice No. 10-26/2019-CO) that licences are not required for utilisation of sound recordings in the case of marriage related functions. The clarification pertains to section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act. Section 52(1)(za) lays […]

Band Baaja Baaraat & Copyright Read More »

Del HC Vacates Interim Orders Restraining Dr. Reddy’s & Ors. from Selling AstraZeneca’s Ticagrelor

/ By / Patent

On 8th August, the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated the interim orders granted in favour of AstraZeneca (‘plaintiff’) preventing Micro Labs, Natco Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (‘defendants’) from selling, marketing or dealing with TICAGRELOR (an effective platelet aggregation inhibitor) or any other product violating the plaintiff’s registered patents- IN 907, IN 984 and IN 674. The case relates to two important issues, namely, selection patents and the difference between coverage and disclosure in a patent. The

Del HC Vacates Interim Orders Restraining Dr. Reddy’s & Ors. from Selling AstraZeneca’s Ticagrelor Read More »

Can IPRs be treated as ‘plant’ under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act?

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

On 15th October, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (judgment available here) on the issue whether the acquisition of trademarks, copyright and technical know-how can be treated as “plant and machinery” so that depreciation/amortization may be claimed on them under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Facts of the Case: Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (MGBW) is a beedi-manufacturing business, which was established in 1940 as a partnership firm. The

Can IPRs be treated as ‘plant’ under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act? Read More »

Blast from the Past: To Kill a Mockingbird

/ By / Copyright, Others

The biggest literary event this year was the release of ‘Go Set a Watchman’, Harper Lee’s much awaited sequel to the book ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. The author who had shunned all limelight since the publication of her first book has been the subject of much speculation at the hands of literary enthusiasts; Harper Lee, who vowed to never publish a book after her maiden novel, generated a great deal of interest and controversy in the literary world when Lee’s

Blast from the Past: To Kill a Mockingbird Read More »

Bombay HC Orders YouTube to Remove ‘IIFW Masterclass’ Episodes

/ By / Copyright

On 21st April, the Bombay HC granted ad-interim injunction relief to Indian Independent Filmmakers Worldwide Association (IIFWA) in a suit for copyright infringement. The suit was filed by IIFWA, a body of independent film-makers formed with the objective of “promoting, supporting and nurturing independent cinema by film-makers of Indian origin anywhere in the world”. The main defendant in the case was YouTube LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company operating from California and having corporate offices in Gurgaon and Mumbai. Google

Bombay HC Orders YouTube to Remove ‘IIFW Masterclass’ Episodes Read More »

‘Bombay Velvet’ and ‘Piku’ Secure Anti-Piracy Orders

/ By / Copyright

Yesterday, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction to Fox Star Studios India Ltd. and Phanton Films, the producers of the movie ‘Bombay Velvet’. The order which has not yet been uploaded on the website of the Delhi High Court, restrains named defendants and unknown parties (John Does) from “hosting, streaming, making available for viewing, downloading, providing access to… or sharing without authorisation on their website, in any manner, the film Bombay Velvet.” The order directs ISPs to

‘Bombay Velvet’ and ‘Piku’ Secure Anti-Piracy Orders Read More »

One, Two, Three…Out

/ By / Copyright, Privacy

The issue regarding liability of internet intermediaries has garnered much interest post Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Under Indian law, the normal course of action to be followed by an intermediary when unlawful content (such as content violating copyright laws) has been posted online is to remove the impugned content from the website; in certain jurisdictions, in addition to “take-down provisions” we have what is known as the “three strikes” rule, a draconian legislation aimed at pressurizing Internet Service

One, Two, Three…Out Read More »

Right to Be Forgotten: A Threat to Freedom of Speech & Expression?

/ By / Copyright, Privacy

It has been almost a year since the European Court of Justice ruled that Google must respond to take-down requests by users alleging that search results on Google violate their right to privacy, a case popularly known as the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) case. The case is one of the many instances where the European Court has upheld the right to privacy of an individual, and while the ruling is an important win for individual rights, the judgment raises

Right to Be Forgotten: A Threat to Freedom of Speech & Expression? Read More »

My Parody, My Mind, My Choice

/ By / Copyright

So the internet is abuzz with Vogue’s latest ‘My Choice’ video starring Deepika Padukone and while the video has earned its fair share of brickbats, with social commentators such as Shobhaa De finding the video loathsome for its bland take on women empowerment, my curiosity in the matter was roused for a very different reason. It appears that someone among the hoi polloi had made a mash-up of Vogue’s video incorporating bits from Govinda’s famous song ‘Meri Marzi’ titled ‘Rogue

My Parody, My Mind, My Choice Read More »

After IPRS, PPL next to claim that it is not a ‘copyright society’

/ By / Copyright

Last year, in a letter dated 20th May, Phonographic Performers’ Limited (PPL) withdrew its application for registration as a copyright society under The Copyright Act, 1957. The text of the letter, addressed to The Registrar of Copyrights, stated inter alia that PPL at the time of its inception in 1941 was registered as a ‘private company’ under the Companies Act. The letter also stated that PPL had submitted an application for registration as a copyright society in accordance with sections

After IPRS, PPL next to claim that it is not a ‘copyright society’ Read More »

Scroll to Top