Author name: SpicyIP

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

/ By / Others

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

/ By / Patent

[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)

/ By / Others

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

/ By / Trademark

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

/ By / Copyright

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)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

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

/ By / Patent

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

/ By / Patent

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 »

Black-and-white logo of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), featuring a map of India with a spinning wheel at the centre, surrounded by Hindi text and the initials “KVIC,” with a Sanskrit motto below.

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences

/ By / Trademark

When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. What Follows a Breach?

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi

/ By / Others

The Delhi High Court’s decision to appoint an amicus curiae to represent Vivek Oberoi’s perspective after his counsel withdrew raises an unusual procedural question in a civil suit pertaining to the right of publicity. This tidbit by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi examines whether such an appointment fits within the established role of an amicus curiae, or risks creating a safety net for plaintiffs who stop actively participating in their own cases. Vishwas is a 4th law student pursuing his B.A. LL.B.

SpicyIP Tidbit – Court’s Friend or Counsel for the Absent Party: Analyzing Delhi Court’s Appointment of Amicus for Vivek Oberoi Read More »

Scroll to Top