Author name: SpicyIP

The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application

/ By / Patent

On the CHC’s judgment clarifying the difference between the statutory filters under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), Srishti Gaur breaks down the Court’s findings and explains how this is not the first time that courts have faced confusion between the two provisions. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Her previous posts can be accessed here. The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application By Srishti Gaur Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970 (henceforth “Act”) […]

The 3(E)-3(D) Fumble: When Synergy Gets Lost in Application Read More »

Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain Patent Battle

/ By / Patent

On the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting Saint Gobain’s appeal against a rejection order, Srishti Gaur explains the Court’s rationale on non-obviousness and novelty, and highlights why the Court was right in rejecting the argument for granting a patent merely because it had been granted by a foreign jurisdiction. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain

Not Every Shiny Idea Travels Well to be an Invention! Lessons from the Saint-Gobain Patent Battle Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 29-October 5)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

CGPDTM’s list of scientific advisers and DHC’s decision on “use of a mark” in a trademark infringement case concerning Princeton University and a regular roundup of free or low-cost IP events, along with fellowships, jobs, and scholarships that we think might be useful. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Rapunzel, Rapunzel, lay down your “lists”: CGPDTM updates the Roll of Scientific Advisers 

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 29-October 5) Read More »

Princeton’s Partial Win: Rethinking Use, Reputation, and Remedies in Trademark Cases

/ By / Trademark

On the Delhi High Court’s recent decision restraining Vagdevi Educational Society from using ‘Princeton’ for any new educational institutions, Anushka Kanabar writes about the Court’s interpretation of ‘use of a mark’ and the application of the transborder reputation principle in this case. Anushka is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Princeton’s Partial Win: Rethinking Use, Reputation, and Remedies in Trademark Cases By Anushka Kanabar The Delhi

Princeton’s Partial Win: Rethinking Use, Reputation, and Remedies in Trademark Cases Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 22-September 28)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Delhi High Court’s decision to set aside an interim injunction against ace composer AR Rahman, posts on recent orders by the High Court on Jolly LLB 3 and Wow Momos, and a regular roundup of free or low-cost IP events, along with fellowships, jobs, and scholarships that we think might be useful. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 22-September 28) Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court to WOW Momo: No Monopoly Over “WOW”

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by Anushka Kamabar. Anushka is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University. Her previous posts can be accessed here.] In its decision on September 12, 2025 , the Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction to WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. against the defendants, intending to trade as ‘WOW BURGER’. The Court’s reasoning reiterates trademark principles on non-distinctiveness, the sanctity of disclaimers, and the importance of approaching the

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court to WOW Momo: No Monopoly Over “WOW” Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Before the Box Office: Analyzing the Pre-Release Dynamic Injunction for Jolly LLB 3

/ By / Copyright

[This post is authored by Riddhi Yogesh Bhutada. Riddhi is a final-year law student at School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), with a focused interest in Intellectual Property Law and Media and Entertainment Law. She enjoys reading and writing on how intellectual property interacts with other disciplines. Her previous posts can be accessed here.] The Delhi High Court, on 12th September 2025 granted a ‘dynamic + injunction’ to JioStar India Private Limited, for the Bollywood film Jolly LLB 3, one

SpicyIP Tidbit: Before the Box Office: Analyzing the Pre-Release Dynamic Injunction for Jolly LLB 3 Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 15- September 21)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

A peek behind the curtains of the Patent Amendment Rules, 2024; discussion on the recent DHC orders regarding personality rights of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar; And the DHC decision on cross examination in post-grant oppositions. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week Part I: A Peek Behind the Curtains of the Patent Amendment Rules 2024

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 15- September 21) Read More »

Right to Integrity in Indian Courts: A Case for an Objective Standard

/ By / Copyright

Proposing a counter to the subjective standard for protecting an author’s right to integrity, Adyasha Samal suggests an objective assessment that considers the context and surrounding factors of the offending act, with the aim of promoting creative freedom. Adyasha is a Researcher at the Institute for European Tort Law, Vienna, and a former SpicyIP Fellow. Her previous posts can be accessed here. She would like to thank Swaraj for his inputs on the post. Right to Integrity in Indian Courts:

Right to Integrity in Indian Courts: A Case for an Objective Standard Read More »

Strategic Delay Backfires: How Novartis Lost Its Cross-Examination Rights

/ By / Patent

Recently, the DHC disposed of Novartis’ writ petition against the Controller’s orders to continue the post-grant opposition before allowing Novartis to cross-examine the Opponents’ experts. Anushka Kanabar breaks down the judgment, discusses how Novartis’ strategy backfired, and explains why the Controller’s decision does not violate the principles of natural justice. Anushka is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Strategic Delay Backfires: How Novartis Lost Its Cross-Examination

Strategic Delay Backfires: How Novartis Lost Its Cross-Examination Rights Read More »

Scroll to Top