Copyright

(Part III) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

Reviewing Part III of the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia”, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, Prof. Ishupal Singh Kang engages with how institutions, courts, and practices shape IP governance beyond doctrinal boundaries, bringing questions of gender, access, expertise, and social justice into the frame. Reading the chapters in conversation rather than isolation, Prof. Kang reflects on innovation-centric assumptions, the politics of IP expertise, and the role of South Asian historical narratives in re-imagining IP law and its […]

(Part III) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

(Part II) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

Continuing the discussion on the book- “Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti, Akshat Agrawal reviews part II of the book (Intellectual Property Developments in South Asia) and examines how South Asian IP regimes are shaped and constrained by the imperative to align with TRIPS, often at a high developmental, cultural, and public-interest cost. Discussing the chapters focusing on Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Akshat highlights how legal transplants, trade pressures, and local

(Part II) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

(Part I) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia

“Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia“, edited by Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti (Reader in Law at the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast), is a timely and important intervention that brings together scholars from across the region to examine how IP law is shaped by local legal cultures, policy priorities, and socio-economic realities. Covering India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, the book speaks directly to concerns at the heart of our readership and holds particular significance for us,

(Part I) Book Review: Intellectual Property Debates in South Asia Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 19 – January 25)

This Weekly Review is authored by Md. Sabeeh Ahmad. Entering the final week of January with the announcement of Pre-finalists for 1st National Policy Brief Competition on IP & Innovation! A post on the recent Zydus v. ER Squibb clarifying biosimilarity is not infringement. A post on the Madras HC’s decision in Rangaraj and Kamal Hassan, shifting India’s personality-rights jurisprudence. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 19 – January 25) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 12 – January 18)

A post critiquing the Bombay HC judgment in Anand Khosla on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Does the DHC’s reaffirmation in Zydus v. Controller that patent examination and pre-grant opposition operate in different parallel raise concerns about natural justice? A post discussing the same. And another post examining DHC’s decision in Pearl Engineering v. Philips concerning stay of money decrees. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 12 – January 18) Read More »

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem

In Anand Khosla v. Punam Kumari Singh, the Bombay High Court quietly retreats from the Supreme Court’s settled position on the arbitrability of IP disputes. Analysing the decision, Aditya Bhargava argues that it misapplies the rights in rem/personam distinction while considering the arbitrability of IP disputes under Vidya Drolia, and improperly legitimises the splitting of causes of action. Aditya is a fourth year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. [Long post ahead] The Unresolved Code: Anand

The Unresolved Code: Anand Khosla, Arbitrability, and the Ghost of Rights in Rem Read More »

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation?

Image from here. The story of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) and its tryst with the Copyright Society framework continues. Readers will recall that in April 2025, a division bench (DB) of the Delhi HC in Azure v PPL had held that PPL cannot issue or grant licences for sound recordings without registering itself as a copyright society or becoming a member of any registered copyright society (Interested folks can refer to my detailed post for the ruling’s analysis). In its directions,

[Tidbit] Will Azure Hospitality Saga Impact the PPL-Passcode Litigation? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 5 – January 11)

More on the DPIIT Working Paper on AI and Copyright – a post on lawful access while ignoring copyright law and a two-part post arguing that Copyright law is ill-suited to address labour displacement caused by GenAI! A post critically examining the DHC’s sweeping judgement on Domain Names. 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 DPIIT Working Report: Lawful

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 5 – January 11) Read More »

DPIIT Working Report: Lawful Access while ignoring Copyright Law

When I was reading the DPIIT working paper on AI & Copyright, my mind instantly went back to Bartz v Anthropic. To be specific, I recalled the following lines from the judgement- “The downloaded pirated copies used to build a central library were not justified by a fair use.” As Ed Lee explained here, Bartz did not consider it relevant whether the pirated copies would be used for transformative use. The fact that a central library was built using pirated books disqualified Anthropic from using fair use as a defence.

DPIIT Working Report: Lawful Access while ignoring Copyright Law Read More »

Part 2: Copyright is the Wrong Answer

Continuing the discussion on why copyright is ill-equipped to address labour displacement caused by GenAI, Part II of Akshat’s post moves beyond copyright to explore alternative frameworks for engaging with the underlying concerns. Akshat is the founder and counsel at AASA Law Chambers. He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge. He would like to add the following acknowledgements and disclaimer- “Credit to Profs. Oren Bracha and Talha Syed for ideas, and for “The Work of Copyright in the

Part 2: Copyright is the Wrong Answer Read More »

Scroll to Top