Copyright

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4)

Beating the Monday blues after a long weekend, here we are with the first Weekly Review of October, featuring a post on Section 124, case summaries of orders passed by different High Courts last week, and updates on other national and international IP developments. Anything we’re missing? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Can Section 124 be Invoked in Section 47 Cancellation Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? The interplay between trademark infringement

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 28- October 4) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September)

Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. 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 Remembering Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh, WBNUJS IP Chair Professor Prof. (Dr.) Pinaki Ghosh’s work in intellectual property took him from laboratories and corporate boardrooms to

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September) Read More »

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement

The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan‘. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely. Vanshika Verma writes on this development below. Vanshika is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, with an interest in commercial law, IPR, technology law and policy. TCRC

TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah: Copyright, Acquiescence, and the Cost of an Unwritten Arrangement Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September)

In this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review, we have comments submitted by a few of our team members on the IPO’s Draft Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the Field of Pharmaceuticals, 2026, along with case summaries of the orders and judgments we were able to find. If we’ve missed anything, drop a comment below and let us know. Highlight of the Week Specific Comments on the IPO’s Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines (2026) The IPO’s 2026 Draft Pharmaceutical Guidelines

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13)

After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the ongoing Ribociclib litigation before the Kerala High Court, the paper trail in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, and the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach towards well-known marks and TM

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 7- September 13) Read More »

Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules : Part 2

In continuation of Part 1, this Part tests the arguments run by the Platforms where they state that – striking content upon complaint and terminating accounts with repeated complaints is due diligence which the IT Act and Rules requires. The Concept of a “Voluntary” Takedown The third proviso to Rule 3(1)(d), in force from 2021 until 15 November 2025, had three notable features. It covered removal “under clause (b) on a voluntary basis” and removal on grievances under sub-rule (2).

Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules : Part 2 Read More »

Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules : Part 1

The Delhi High Court has been recently grappling with issues concerning Copyright Strikes and takedowns by platforms, which have been necessitating Section 60 suits before the IPD Bench in Delhi.  In Saurabh Maurya v. John Doe, CS(COMM) 870 of 2026, the Instagram account of a content creator had been suspended upon copyright strikes. Inspite of restoration of the content by Meta, the Plaintiff has pressed that the mode and manner of dealing with copyright strikes by intermediary platforms is in

Unpacking Copyright Strikes, Safe Harbour and Due Diligence under the IT Rules : Part 1 Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit- Paper Trail in IPRS v Hotel Appolo: Missing Caveat and the IPRS License

Last week, I wrote a post on a licensing quagmire covering the recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, which dealt with an important question of whether a hotel needs to take an IPRS license for cable TV to run in its hotel rooms. The Calcutta High Court said yes, and restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating musical and literary work owned by IPRS to guests through hotel-room television sets without a valid license, while the Supreme

SpicyIP Tidbit- Paper Trail in IPRS v Hotel Appolo: Missing Caveat and the IPRS License Read More »

Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter

Introduction “With the internet, the question of ‘territorial’ jurisdiction gets complicated largely on account of the fact that the internet is borderless.” A sentiment raised by Justice Muralidhar in 2010 still rings true in 2026 (has perhaps turned more complicated). While the journey of determining jurisdiction has taken several turns since then, it has now reached a new one with Hindustan Unilever Limited v Kwick Living (I) Private Limited. The suit, filed in the DHC, sought a permanent injunction against

Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter Read More »

Reforming Legal Deposit: Why the Jan Vishwas Amendment Falls Short

This post has been co-authored with Charan Ashok. Charan is a fifth-year B.A., LL.B (Hons) student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The Delivery of Books Act, 1956 (“DB Act”), one of India’s most forgotten statutes, has been amended via the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2026. The said Amendment Act was notified in the e-Gazette on 8th April, 2026 and has come into force. The amendments modify the penalty provisions of the DB Act and

Reforming Legal Deposit: Why the Jan Vishwas Amendment Falls Short Read More »

Scroll to Top