Author name: SpicyIP

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

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”

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 »

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

The Delhi High Court has been seeing what can be termed an almost unending spate of personality rights filings, but there’s now a fork in the road that recent orders over the past month are recognising. In this three-part post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar argues that “personality rights” in India is not a single cause of action but a salad platter of analytically distinct claims, and reads the August 2026 orders as the first sign that the platter is finally being

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

Image of a box of KRYXANA Ribociclib 200 mg film-coated tablets, marked “For sale in India only.”

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today

[This post is authored by Rishabh Upadhyay. Rishabh is an LL.M. candidate at the Faculty of Law, Delhi University, having completed his undergraduate legal studies at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University. His interest lies in intellectual property jurisprudence, with particular emphasis on Patent Law, Access to Medicines, and International Law.] The Kerala High Court is set to conduct the final hearing in the long-running Ribociclib litigation today. In July, I had written (Part I, Part II) on this

SpicyIP Tidbit: All Eyes on Kerala HC’s Final Hearing in the Ribociclib Matter Today Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (31 August- 6 September)

Kicking off September with an exciting week featuring posts on the latest guidelines by the Patent Office on the use of AI in patent examination, copyright strikes, the Calcutta High Court order in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, the Copyright Office’s decision in the Thaler-Dabus case, and the Delhi High Court order in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Highlights of the Week Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision

SpicyIP Weekly Review (31 August- 6 September) Read More »

Jyothy Labs logo featuring a blue flower-like emblem with yellow accents, followed by the words “Jyothy Labs” in blue.

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur

At first glance, Jyothy Labs v. Dabur looks like a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of “NEEM” on toothpaste packaging. But beneath the favourable factual matrix lies a shakier doctrinal foundation, particularly on essential-feature protection, the descriptive–suggestive divide, and passing off. In this post, Harsh Kashyap examines how the Bombay High Court reached what may well be the right result on the facts, while questioning whether parts of its reasoning can safely travel beyond them. Harsh is a

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur Read More »

Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision in Thaler

In light of the Copyright Office’s refusal to register Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI-generated artwork, holding that DABUS cannot be recognised as its author, Vikram Raj Nanda and Sumukhi Subramanian unpack the decision. They examine what it gets right on originality, authorship and ownership, and where its reasoning on human creative control and AI disclosure leaves questions unanswered. Vikram is a fourth-year student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, with a keen interest in IP law, Competition Law, and

Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision in Thaler Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30) Read More »

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller Read More »

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition

A recent Bombay High Court decision adds an important procedural dimension to the growing judicial scrutiny of how Controllers assess obviousness. Maneesha Gupta explains how in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the problem was not the absence of evidence for common general knowledge, but the Controller’s reliance on evidence that was never disclosed to the Opposition Board or the patentee before revoking the patent. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of

Adventures of Controller: Citing CGK suo motu in Post-Grant Opposition Read More »

Scroll to Top