Author name: SpicyIP

Journalistic Expression or Commercial Shaming? When Media Criticism Meets Commercial Disparagement Law

/ By / Copyright

In a clash between legacy broadcast media and digital watchdog journalism, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in TV Today v. Newslaundry confronts a difficult modern question: when does sharp media criticism become actionable commercial disparagement? Naman Singh writes that while the judgment offers important clarifications on interim injunctions, it leaves unresolved the deeper tension between reputational protection and press freedom. Naman is an LLB (Hons.) student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Having a background in music, film, […]

Journalistic Expression or Commercial Shaming? When Media Criticism Meets Commercial Disparagement Law Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 20- April 26)

/ By / Copyright, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

After an exciting week of discussion on GIs, ambush marketing, and the right of publicity, here is a round-up of the week with the latest edition of the Weekly Review for April. This week featured discussions on the Delhi High Court’s orders in the Peruvian Pisco appeal and the Allu Arjun personality rights matter. We also had posts on ambush marketing and the IPO’s rejection of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s patent application for a DABUS-invented invention. Are we missing anything? Drop

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 20- April 26) Read More »

Crashing the Game, Not the Law: Ambush Marketing and IP Law

/ By / Trademark

A very happy World IP Day to our readers! As the IPL frenzy returns, so does the battle for consumer attention, this time fought as much through witty notifications and real-time campaigns as on the cricket field, and raising familiar questions about the legality and limits of ambush marketing. In this post, Anooja Padhee and Jyoti Panigrahi argue that non-deceptive ambush marketing reflects creative competition and that IP law should protect rights without stifling humour, parody, and innovation. Anooja is

Crashing the Game, Not the Law: Ambush Marketing and IP Law Read More »

Part II: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!) 

/ By / Others, Privacy, Trademark

Building on Part I’s critique of the DHC’s doctrinal conflation in the Allu Arjun case, Part II of the post turns to a related concern: the Court’s failure to distinguish between vastly different forms of unauthorised use. In this post, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar explains how collapsing fan practices, commercial merchandise, and AI-driven misuse into a single category produces an overbroad and structurally flawed approach to personality rights. Dr. Aakanksha Kumar (She/Her) is an independent researcher and academic who also consults

Part II: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!)  Read More »

Part I: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!) 

/ By / Copyright, Others, Overlaps in IP, Trademark

Recent personality rights orders from the Delhi High Court continue to push the doctrine into uncertain territory, with the latest ruling in favour of Allu Arjun marking a particularly sharp turn. In Part I of the two-part post on the order, Dr. Aakanksha Kumar argues that by characterizing the likeness of the actor as “copyrights of the plaintiff”, the Court collapses distinct IP doctrines into an overbroad conception of “personality rights,” raising serious concerns for copyright and publicity jurisprudence in

Part I: Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!)  Read More »

ANI v OpenAI: Not Everything an LLM Does is Copyright Infringement

/ By / Copyright

With judgment now reserved in ANI v OpenAI, India stands at the cusp of what might be its first major judicial reckoning with the copyright implications of generative AI. The case raises foundational questions on whether AI systems merely process information in new ways or unlawfully appropriate protected expression. Vishno Sudheendra examines two of the most contested issues from the final hearings: chatbot web search functionality and memorization. Vishno is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B (Hons) student at the National Law

ANI v OpenAI: Not Everything an LLM Does is Copyright Infringement Read More »

(Part II) Right Without Duty: Academic Copyright, the Publisher’s Juridical Fiction, and the Case for an Ex Ante Reading of Section 52

/ By / Copyright

Continuing the discussion on the Scihub litigation, in Part II of their post, Rishabh Upadhyay and Pragati Upadhyay turn to the August 2025 order as a vantage point to examine what the litigation has, so far, failed to do. They argue that the procedural exclusion of intervenors and the Court’s reliance on contempt have sidelined the core question of academic access under Section 52. Building on this, they make the case for reimagining fair dealing as an ex ante right

(Part II) Right Without Duty: Academic Copyright, the Publisher’s Juridical Fiction, and the Case for an Ex Ante Reading of Section 52 Read More »

(Part I) Right Without Duty: Academic Copyright, the Publisher’s Juridical Fiction, and the Case for an Ex Ante Reading of Section 52

/ By / Copyright

The Sci-Hub litigation has dragged on for years without confronting the core question it presents: what is the purpose of copyright in academic works? As the Court circles procedural issues, Rishabh Upadhyay and Pragati Upadhyay argue that a deeper structural failure remains unaddressed, one that, in Hohfeldian terms, allows publishers to enforce claim-rights while evading their correlative duties. The result is a system that converts publicly funded research into privately controlled access. Before addressing the symptom, they argue, the law

(Part I) Right Without Duty: Academic Copyright, the Publisher’s Juridical Fiction, and the Case for an Ex Ante Reading of Section 52 Read More »

After Crocs, After Carlsberg: Does Harpic v. Spic Finally Clear the Air?

/ By / Design, Trademark

Can trademark law be used to reclaim what design law has deliberately released into the public domain? Khushi Krishania writes on the Calcutta High Court’s recent Division Bench decision in the Harpic v. Spic dispute, explaining how it revisits this uneasy intersection, but ultimately leaves its most difficult questions unresolved.  Khushi is a third-year B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) {Cybersecurity} student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, with a particular interest in the intersection of copyright and data protection law. After Crocs,

After Crocs, After Carlsberg: Does Harpic v. Spic Finally Clear the Air? Read More »

Diagnosing the Diagnostic Exclusion: Have Geron and Hirotsu Resolved the Delhi High Court’s Troubles?

/ By / Patent

Section 3(i) of the Patents Act has long left the boundaries of diagnostic method exclusions uncertain, despite repeated judicial engagement. Two recent Delhi High Court decisions now offer the clearest articulation yet, bringing much-needed coherence to this evolving area of law. Shubham Thakare and Arpanjot Kaur explain these orders, highlighting how they not only clarify the legal position but also sharpen the policy tensions underlying the provision. Shubham is a third-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School

Diagnosing the Diagnostic Exclusion: Have Geron and Hirotsu Resolved the Delhi High Court’s Troubles? Read More »

Scroll to Top