Copyright

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Kicking off the week with a roundup of exciting IP developments from August 10 to August 16, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Discussions on the DHC’s decision in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja, Guidelines on Section 3(m) examinations by the Delhi High Court, and a post on India’s ISP copyright problem. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlight of the Week Playing […]

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16) Read More »

Three-panel bicycle meme showing “Intermediaries” initially riding smoothly under “Section 79: Stay neutral and retain safe harbour,” then being thrown off balance by “Rule 4(1A), IT Amendment Rules, 2026,” and finally lying on the ground beside the fallen bicycle.

India’s ISP Copyright Problem – Self-Inflicted?

/ By / Copyright

India’s intermediary liability framework has long struggled to reconcile copyright enforcement with the protections afforded to platforms under Section 79 of the IT Act. This tension has recently been amplified by the Delhi High Court’s directions seeking clarity from Meta on its policies governing access to its Rights Manager tool (a development we will examine in one of our forthcoming posts), as well as by the amendments to the IT Rules tightening intermediary obligations (discussed by Sonisha here). Against this

India’s ISP Copyright Problem – Self-Inflicted? Read More »

How Much Evidence Is Enough? The Evidentiary Threshold for Interim Injunctions in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja

/ By / Copyright

How much evidence is enough to establish copyright ownership at the interim stage? Unpacking the Delhi High Court’s latest decision in the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja case, Umeshwari Ranjan explains how the decision offers an important answer, while leaving some questions unanswered about assignment validity, irreparable injury, and the scope of decades-old rights in the age of digital exploitation. Umeshwari is a third-year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, and an IDIA Scholar. Her academic interests lie in Intellectual

How Much Evidence Is Enough? The Evidentiary Threshold for Interim Injunctions in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

[The Weekly Review is authored by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi. Vishwas is a 4th year law student at RGNUL, Patiala.] Posts on MeitY’s stricter compliance rules for takedowns, Delhi High Court’s decision in HBO v. Streamzy[dot]to, Madras High Court’s Bolar judgement in Novartis v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients, and Delhi High Court’s Alphard decision. This and much more in the second SpicyIP weekly review for August. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9) Read More »

Old Rule New Amnesia: A 6 Month Old Takedown Rule Rebranded as “Breaking News”

/ By / Copyright, Others

August 6th, Breaking News! The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has introduced stricter compliance rules for social media platforms, significantly reducing the time available to remove “unlawful” content from 36 hours to 3 hours of receiving a government or court notice, and from 24 hours to 2 hours for sensitive content! (here, here, here) But wait, it seems like a déjà vu! Didn’t the February 2026 amendments to the The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)

Old Rule New Amnesia: A 6 Month Old Takedown Rule Rebranded as “Breaking News” Read More »

Dynamic Injunctions, Website Blocking, and the Limits of Section 79 of the IT Act: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s HBO Order

/ By / Copyright

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.To attempts to strike a balance between the need to effectively combat online piracy and the concerns raised by increasingly expansive website-blocking orders. Explaining the order, Vikram Raj Nanda examines whether the Court’s approach marks a meaningful course correction in the law on dynamic injunctions, and whether its framework for involving ISPs and domain name registrars truly preserves their role as neutral intermediaries. Vikram is a fourth-year student at

Dynamic Injunctions, Website Blocking, and the Limits of Section 79 of the IT Act: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s HBO Order Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August)

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

Stepping into August with posts on the DHC’s order in ANI v. OpenAI, Interdigital v Transsion, the Ribociclib saga, and digital archive. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I) The Delhi High Court’s much-awaited interim order in ANI v. OpenAI addresses several

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August) Read More »

Digital Archiving: The MVP!

/ By / Copyright

“Books are for use” may have been written with physical libraries in mind, but the principle is just as relevant in today’s digital age. With copyright amendments reportedly in the offing, Maneesha Gupta examines why India’s library and archival exceptions need updating to enable meaningful digital preservation and access to knowledge, particularly for students and researchers. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru, and a participant in the SpicyIP Summer School 2026. Digital Archiving:

Digital Archiving: The MVP! Read More »

ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part II)

/ By / Copyright, Innovation

Part I examined the Court’s transformative approach to fair dealing, its recognition of Section 52 as embodying user rights, and its emphasis on public interest. Part II turns to the remaining issues: whether ChatGPT memorized or substantially reproduced ANI’s works, and whether the Delhi High Court rightly assumed territorial jurisdiction. No memorization, regurgitation or substantial reproduction – Issue II The Court split Issue II into two sub-issues [Para 75]:  The Court observed that ChatGPT could not have memorized (i.e., storage

ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part II) Read More »

ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I)

/ By / Copyright, Innovation

The judgment in ANI v OpenAI has finally been pronounced! OpenAI’s use of ANI’s copyrighted works was held to be prima facie non-infringing. 24th July, 2026 would mark a monumental day in Indian IP history, not just because the DHC tackled a cutting-edge AI-copyright dispute while preventing copyright maximalism but also because of its emphasis on public interest and user rights embodied in the Copyright Act, 1957.  To be clear, this is only an interim order. Yet, anyone familiar with

ANI v. OpenAI: User Rights, Fair Dealing, and the Future of AI in Indian Copyright Law (Part I) Read More »

Scroll to Top