Author name: Tejaswini Kaushal

Tejaswini is a SpicyIP Analyst and a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She has a keen interest in Intellectual Property Law, Technology Law, and Corporate Law.

https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/5270710-Brenda-Fassie-Quote-I-am-a-shocker-I-like-to-create-controversy-It.jpg

Sailing Troubled Waters: A Look at the Spiral of Controversies that the CGPDTM Has Fallen Into

/ By / Design, Patent, Trademark

[A big thanks to Mr. Prashant Reddy for his inputs on the post.] Soon after Yogesh’s blog recent post (here) highlighting the change in the Head of the IT office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) in light of a 27 August 2024 notification (pdf), it made sense to look at the broader issues that have been facing the CGPDTM. The aforementioned notification has come after the All India Patent Officer’s Welfare Association (AIPOWA) filed a […]

Sailing Troubled Waters: A Look at the Spiral of Controversies that the CGPDTM Has Fallen Into Read More »

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmNlYWE4M2EtZTI0YS00ZTUzLWFiNjEtNWZlYWY2ZGUwMGQxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODE5NzE3OTE@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg

Not All is Fair in Aashiqui and War?:  Analysing the DHC’s Injunction for Using ‘Aashiqui’ in Super Cassettes’s Film Name 

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

On 2nd September 2024, the Delhi High Court (DHC) in the case of Vishesh Films Private Limited v. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (pdf) delivered a judgment restraining T-Series from using the title “Tu Hi Aashiqui”/ “Tu Hi Aashiqui Hai” or any other title that includes the mark “Aashiqui” for their proposed film. Interestingly, T-Series enjoys joint ownership of the franchise “Aashiqui” with Vishesh Films. The Single Judge Bench (SB) consisting of Justice Sanjeev Narula made some intriguing observations regarding the

Not All is Fair in Aashiqui and War?:  Analysing the DHC’s Injunction for Using ‘Aashiqui’ in Super Cassettes’s Film Name  Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/909d0w.jpg

SLP Rejected in Novartis v. Natco: Are Interim Orders not Precedents?

/ By / Patent

[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.] On 02 August 2024, a three judges bench of the Supreme Court (“SC”), consisting of Justices Dr D Y Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, in the matter of Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma Limited (pdf), dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) over validity of Novartis’s Eltrombopag Olamine (EO) patent (Patent No. IN 233161 (IN 161)) on the grounds that the patent in question had expired by May

SLP Rejected in Novartis v. Natco: Are Interim Orders not Precedents? Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/91ir22.jpg

Trademark Rectification And Counterclaims: MadHC’s Views on the Interaction of Sections 47, 57 and 124

/ By / Trademark

On August 20, 2024, a single-judge bench of the IP Division of the Madras High Court (MadHC) issued an Order (pdf) with notable observations about the feasibility of allowing a counterclaim in a trademark rectification petition filed under Sections 47 (cancellation of trademark on the grounds of non-use) and 57 (rectification of trademark) of the Trademark Act, 1999 (“TM Act”). The case involved the trademark “Solidare” (Trademark No. 1574746 in Class 9). In this post,  I’ll examine the precedential value

Trademark Rectification And Counterclaims: MadHC’s Views on the Interaction of Sections 47, 57 and 124 Read More »

https://static.javatpoint.com/difference/images/difference-between-product-and-process.png

Product Patents and Process Patents: Analysing the MHC’s Insights in the cases of Kyorin and Frito-Lay

/ By / Patent

On July 5, 2024, Justice P.B. Balaji of the Madras High Court (MHC) delivered two decisions that overturned the Controller’s rejection of patent applications, siding with the appellants in both cases. These judgements emphasised the distinction between product and process for the patents and critically examined the validity of the prior art cited by the Controller as grounds for rejecting the applications. Bitter Pill to Swallow: Controller’s Decision Overturned for Kyrorin’s Patent Application  The first one is Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co

Product Patents and Process Patents: Analysing the MHC’s Insights in the cases of Kyorin and Frito-Lay Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/8yfwz5.jpg

(GM) Mustard and More: Analysing the SC’s Decision in Gene Campaign v. UOI

/ By / Innovation

On 23 July 2024, the Supreme Court  (SC) delivered a split verdict on the commercial sale of Genetically Modified Mustard (GM Mustard) in India in the case of Gene Campaign vs. Union of India and Others. A Division Bench (DB) comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol issued two separate judgments. Justice BV Nagarathna quashed the approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), while Justice Sanjay Karol

(GM) Mustard and More: Analysing the SC’s Decision in Gene Campaign v. UOI Read More »

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2d783279fe7406a787e3f5c94486f730-lq

…And The Covaxin Patent Saga Continues: BBIL Changes the Patent Application Again

/ By / Patent

The Story Till Now On one hand, COVID-19 cases are rising yet again to everyone’s surprise, and on the other, the surprises from the Covaxin patent application don’t seem to stop. In late June this year, I wrote (here) about how Bharat Biotech (BBIL) filed a patent application for Covaxin without listing the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) as a co-patentee or inventor, despite the Health Ministry asserting that the intellectual property rights over Covaxin are “jointly owned” by

…And The Covaxin Patent Saga Continues: BBIL Changes the Patent Application Again Read More »

https://windowsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/best-browser-for-google-workspace-52.jpg

[PART II] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights

/ By / Others

[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]  This is Part II of the two-part post on the recent Bombay High Court (BomHC) order in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP that has initiated a judicial discussion on the protection of artists’ personality rights against the unauthorised use of their voices by AI tools. In Part I of the post (here), the BomHC’s decision and analysis on the issue of AI cloning of singers’

[PART II] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights Read More »

https://i.imgflip.com/8z8h4c.jpg

[PART I] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights

/ By / Others

[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]  On July 26, 2024, the Bombay High Court (BomHC) delivered a significant order in the case of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, marking a big step in the protection of artists’ personality rights against the unauthorised use of their voices by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. In this case, noted singer and composer Arijit Singh requested legal protection against the unauthorised commercial use of his personal attributes, such as

[PART I] Synthetic Singers and Voice Theft: BomHC protects Arijit Singh’s Personality Rights Read More »

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/472032039/photo/music-note-on-the-dollar-background.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=v8DrgTDjDs0zF4ClSqlpH0dvUc42g-W-LOOv2nQDUWw=

DHC strikes the Right Chord Clarifying that a Pending Compulsory License Application Will Not Justify Allegedly Infringing Activity to Continue 

/ By / Copyright

On July 12, 2024, the Delhi High Court (DHC) issued two orders in a matter involving a dispute between Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and Al-Hamd Tradenation concerning interim injunctions and compulsory licensing (CL). This post analyses the astuteness of the two orders and the implications this jurisprudence will have on future litigations involving similar matters. The Interim Injunction Grant… On July 12, 2024, a single bench (SB) of the DHC granted an interim injunction against Al-Hamd Tradenation in the case

DHC strikes the Right Chord Clarifying that a Pending Compulsory License Application Will Not Justify Allegedly Infringing Activity to Continue  Read More »

Scroll to Top