Author name: Kartik Sharma

Kartik is an analyst at SpicyIP. He is a final year law student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru and secured the second prize in Shamnad Basheer Essay Competition (2025 edition). (mail: ubaykartik[at]gmail.com)

Gone Goodwill?: Analysing Trademark Abandonment and Goodwill Destruction in the Yezdi Order of Karnataka HC Division Bench

/ By / Trademark

IP nerds and bike enthusiasts (brownie points if you are both!) will recall the controversy around Yezdi motorbikes between Boman R Irani and the Official Liquidator (OL) of Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. over the mark ‘Yezdi’. Amidst the continuing hype around the revival of the famous Jawa and Yezdi bikes, people were wondering: Who actually holds the right over the bike name Yezdi? Irani’s father had established Ideal Jawa which sold the famous motorbike. However, the company later went into […]

Gone Goodwill?: Analysing Trademark Abandonment and Goodwill Destruction in the Yezdi Order of Karnataka HC Division Bench Read More »

Reflections from an IP Weekend: The First Rajiv K. Luthra Memorial Lecture 2025 Delivered by Prof. Dev Gangjee

/ By / Copyright

The IP enthusiast in me had a great weekend after attending the First Rajiv K. Luthra Memorial Lecture on 29th November 2025, jointly organized by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, and the Rajiv K. Luthra Foundation (RKLF). Prof Dev Gangjee from University of Oxford delivered the lecture on the topic ‘Tools or Partners? Hybrid Human-AI Creativity and the Boundaries of Copyright’. Prof Gangjee was later joined by Eashan Ghosh, In-Charge IPR Chair at National Law University

Reflections from an IP Weekend: The First Rajiv K. Luthra Memorial Lecture 2025 Delivered by Prof. Dev Gangjee Read More »

Dissecting the Delhi HC’s Assessment of Diagnostic Processes Under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act

/ By / Patent

The Delhi HC has articulated a detailed interpretative understanding of the exclusion of diagnostic methods from patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. In three judgments passed in three different appeals (Natera, Sequenom, and Emd Millipore), the Court has laid down the manner in which the provision is to be understood and applied. The Court clarified that the manner in which the diagnosis is to be performed cannot be patented, whereas diagnostic tools, products, and devices can still be

Dissecting the Delhi HC’s Assessment of Diagnostic Processes Under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act Read More »

FRANDship with Comparable Licenses: Confidentiality Club Constituted in Nokia v Asustek & Ors.

/ By / Patent

Image from here. In a recent order, the Delhi HC decided on the terms of the constitution of the Confidentiality Club in certain connected SEP suits. Confidentiality clubs, as agreed-upon mechanisms to restrict the dissemination of confidential documents and materials in certain suits to only the necessary personnel, do have their criticisms. For example, by restricting access to valuable information around standard “essential” patents, even though they are contained in different license agreements. In this way, confidentiality clubs can lead

FRANDship with Comparable Licenses: Confidentiality Club Constituted in Nokia v Asustek & Ors. Read More »

DHC allows AR Rahman’s Appeal- Authorship is Composed not Performed!

/ By / Copyright

Image from here. The Division Bench (DB) of Delhi HC has given us a well-reasoned and hard hitting order on the interplay of copyright law and Indian classical music. In the highly publicized copyright battle between Ustaad Faiyas Wasifuddin Dagar and AR Rahman, the DB has reversed the single bench’s (SB)  ruling that had held AR Rahman’s song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ from Ponniyin Selvan 2 to be prima facie infringing Ustaad Dagar’s (who was the plaintiff) copyright in the classical

DHC allows AR Rahman’s Appeal- Authorship is Composed not Performed! Read More »

When Everything is a Right, What’s Left? Analysing Rajasthan HC’s Invocation of Article 21 in a Trademark Context

/ By / Trademark

IP and constitutional law are two phrases that you barely encounter together at one place. This rendezvous, however, happened recently where Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was invoked in relation to trademark applications! Apparently the right to a quick trademark examination is a fundamental right! How did we land up here? Read on below. The trigger seems triggering enough. The Rajasthan HC decided a civil writ petition Nirmala Kabra v Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr  seeking direction to

When Everything is a Right, What’s Left? Analysing Rajasthan HC’s Invocation of Article 21 in a Trademark Context Read More »

Pride & Prejudice: The Supreme Court’s Sobering Take on Post-Sale Confusion

/ By / Trademark

This post is co-authored with Aditya Bhargava, a fourth year law student at NLSIU Bengaluru and who has also contributed to the blog previously (here). This blog usually covers a wide range of trademark disputes; however, most of them are adjudicated at the high court stage. This piece, in that regard, is slightly different—it comes straight from the Supreme Court of India (‘SC’). It’s none other than the great battle between Blenders Pride and London Pride. For the uninitiated, this

Pride & Prejudice: The Supreme Court’s Sobering Take on Post-Sale Confusion Read More »

Domain Name Ring-Fencing: Evaluation of Madras HC’s new pre-emptive twist to dynamic injunctions 

/ By / Trademark

This post is co-authored with Aditya Singh, a dear friend and a final year law student at NLSIU. Madras HC has added a new chapter to the tale of dynamic injunctions that will have salient implications for the domain name and copyright protection regime in India. Dynamic injunctions were developed as a quick remedy enabling right-holders to directly implead infringing rogue websites (Order I Rule 10 of CPC for instance, allows for additional parties to be added to the suit),

Domain Name Ring-Fencing: Evaluation of Madras HC’s new pre-emptive twist to dynamic injunctions  Read More »

Device Found, but Not a Case of Patent Infringement: Examining the Order in Conqueror Innovations v Xiaomi

/ By / Patent

Many of the readers who own a Xiaomi device would be familiar with the company’s ‘Find Device’ feature that allows users to perform features on their phone remotely, including the ability to track, lock or even erase data from it. This functionality was at the centre of an important order recently where the Delhi HC refused to issue an interim injunction against Xiaomi from using its ‘Find Device’ feature on the allegations of patent infringement raised by the plaintiff, a

Device Found, but Not a Case of Patent Infringement: Examining the Order in Conqueror Innovations v Xiaomi Read More »

A Quick Look at the Draft Patent Rules 2025: What’s New(and Old)?

/ By / Patent

It’s 2025, and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry released another set of draft rules in order to amend the Patent Rules 2003. The notification mentions that the draft rules will be taken into consideration after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of their public availability through the gazette (the e-gazette website shows the issue date as 17 July 2025 and the publish date as 18 July 2025, while the notification itself is headlined with

A Quick Look at the Draft Patent Rules 2025: What’s New(and Old)? Read More »

Scroll to Top