Author name: SpicyIP

Logo for Marvel Studios' series "What If" with the title written in red with black background

Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

/ By / Trademark

The interplay between trademark infringement proceedings and non-use cancellation proceedings under Sections 47 and 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 raises a deceptively simple question: can a Section 47 proceeding trigger a stay of an infringement suit? With the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts taking divergent approaches, Arushi Bisht and Snehal Singh examine the statutory and practical implications of treating “rectification proceedings” under Section 124 as encompassing non-use cancellation proceedings. Arushi Bisht is an Intellectual Property Attorney with four

Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh, WBNUJS IP Chair Professor Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh’s work in intellectual property took him from laboratories and corporate boardrooms to

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September) Read More »

Logo of Zara with the word "Zara" written in black.

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2)

/ By / Trademark

The Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA ruling settles one question while leaving another lurking beneath it. A formal declaration, the Court holds, is not necessary to invoke Section 11(2). But if well-known status can be established through individual proceedings, what happens to the certainty that Rule 124 was meant to provide? Harjas Singh Gulati writes on this development below. Harjas is a Trainee Associate at ALG India Law Offices LLP. He is interested in Intellectual property matters along with

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2) Read More »

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement

/ By / Copyright

The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan‘. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely. Vanshika Verma writes on this development below. Vanshika is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, with an interest in commercial law, IPR, technology law and policy. TCRC

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

In this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review, we have comments submitted by a few of our team members on the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026, along with case summaries of the orders and judgments we were able to find. If we’ve missed anything, drop a comment below and let us know. Highlight of the Week Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) The IPO’s 2026 Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court, the paper trail in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, and the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach towards well-known marks and TM

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13) Read More »

[Sponsored] IP8 Expands into Patent Decision Intelligence with Five Connected AI Workflows

/ By / Sponsored

A year after launching agentic AI for patent-infringement surveillance, IP8 expands across critical patent decision workflows for law firms and enterprise IP teams. To know more, read their press release below:- [Sponsored] IP8 Expands into Patent Decision Intelligence with Five Connected AI Workflows (13 September 2026) Pune, India— IP8 today announced the launch of its next-generation Patent Decision Intelligence Platform, expanding from its original focus on continuous patent-infringement surveillance and monetization into a unified platform spanning Novelty, Invalidity, Freedom-to-Operate (FTO),

[Sponsored] IP8 Expands into Patent Decision Intelligence with Five Connected AI Workflows Read More »

Section 14 is Not Section 25: Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Bid

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s order in Fresenius Kabi v. Controller may ultimately turn on a Section 14 violation, but the concerns it flags go well beyond procedure, extending to hindsight, prior-art mosaicking, and the treatment of technical evidence. Pranay Borupothu examines the decision and unpacks these procedural and substantive concerns in the Controller’s reasoning. Pranay is a 3rd-year LL.B.(Hons.) student at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, and has a keen interest in IP laws. Section 14 is

Section 14 is Not Section 25: Delhi High Court Revives Sugammadex Patent Bid Read More »

[Part III] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”

/ By / Others

Continuing the discussion on an almost unending spate of personality rights filings (first part and second part), in the third part of the post, Aakanksha turns to fandom, fan merchandise, and fan participation in celebrification – and to some hopes for free speech uses of celebrity personality. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar (She/Her) is an independent researcher and academic. Since 2019, she has designed and taught a self-created elective course across law schools titled Comparative Celebrity Laws: Personality, Publicity and Free Speech

[Part III] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter” Read More »

[Part II] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter”

/ By / Others

In the first part of this three-part post, Aakanksha discussed the standard, overbroad prayers in almost every personality rights suit, and the August 2026 orders that have begun to dismantle them. In this second part, she examines the reasons for the concentration of these suits in the DHC and engages with the Court’s three questions in Aaradhya Bachchan. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar (She/Her) is an independent researcher and academic. Since 2019, she has designed and taught a self-created elective course across

[Part II] The Road Not Taken (Down): Delhi HC Starts Sorting the Personality Rights “Salad Platter” Read More »

Scroll to Top