Author name: Divij Joshi

The week’s thematic highlight has to be the guest post on the ‘physical copy’ doctrine in Indian Copyright Law, contributed by MV Swaroop and Shrey Patnaik. In the aftermath of the Raabta-Magadheera copyright row, Swaroop analyses copyright in cinematographic films and the apparent divergence of the Calcutta High Court from the text of Section 14 of the Copyright Act in allowing the producer of a film to sue for infringement of a ‘copycat’ or substantially similar film. The topical highlight

(This Weekly Review was written by SpicyIP fellow Sreyoshi Guha) This week’s thematic highlight was the two-part guest post by Eashan Ghosh on the distinction between an action for trademark infringement under section 29(1) and that under section 29(2) of the Trademarks Act. Part 1 begins by highlighting this distinction as part of the contentions raised during a recent trademark infringement case before the Bombay High Court. Eashan argues that both the sections are embedded in an ‘activity-comparison-condition’ chain that the

Our topical highlights this week were both provided by Prof. Basheer. The first post was the news that the DU Photocopy Case finally reached its closure, with the Supreme Court, in a bench consisting of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, refusing leave to the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (“IRRO”) to appeal against the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the DU Photocopy Case. Given that the IRRO was only an intervener in the original suit, the Supreme Court