Trademark – SpicyIP

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 10- August 16)

August 17, 2026 / By SpicyIP / 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 »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 3- August 9)

August 10, 2026 / By SpicyIP / 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 »

Beyond Prius? The DHC’s ALPHARD Decision on Trans-Border Reputation

August 3, 2026 / By Vishno Sudheendra / Trademark

Introduction The Delhi High Court (“DHC”), on 4th May 2026 in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd., overturned a Single Judge judgment (2023) and granted the mark “ALPHARD” well-known status while affirming its trans-border reputation. The judgment is noteworthy as it has articulated a test for trans-border reputation and has also observed that in luxury/niche markets, brand visibility and global reputation drive consumer awareness and not mass penetration. In this blog post, I break down the judgment,

Beyond Prius? The DHC’s ALPHARD Decision on Trans-Border Reputation Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (27 July-2 August)

August 3, 2026 / By SpicyIP / 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 »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 13- July 26)

July 27, 2026 / By SpicyIP / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

A round-up of all the important developments from the last 2 weeks, here is the SpicyIP Weekly Review featuring discussions on the Delhi High Court decision in the OpenAI case, the comments submitted to CDSCO on brand name extension, and the missing public consultations on the proposed Copyright Act amendments. This and much more in this week’s Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Weeks Training ChatGPT on Copyrighted Works

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 13- July 26) Read More »

Comments on CDSCO’s Brand Name Extension Policies

July 24, 2026 / By Swaraj Paul Barooah / Drug Regulation, Trademark

Earlier this month, we had shared the news of CDSCO inviting comments on the long standing problem of Brand Name Extensions (BNE) practices. While this problem is one with severe consequences, it appears to have very little public discourse around it. Thanks to the quick work of 2 very industrious SpicyIP Summer School alumni, Rishabh Upadhyay and Umeshawari Ranjan, we were able to put together and send some comments just in time for the deadline. Instead of putting out the

Comments on CDSCO’s Brand Name Extension Policies Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 6-July 12)

July 13, 2026 / By SpicyIP / Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Traditional Knowledge

Bringing you a roundup of all the important IP developments from the last week, here is the SpicyIP Weekly Review featuring posts on the ongoing Satluj controversy, reflections on the SpicyIP Summer School 2026, and the Bombay High Court ruling on Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks. 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 Reflections from

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 6-July 12) Read More »

A Procedural Servant or a Master of Delay? A Critical Legal Analysis of the Bombay High Court’s Ruling in Black Diamond Motors

July 10, 2026 / By SpicyIP / Trademark

The Bombay High Court’s recent decision in Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks marks a significant departure from the Delhi High Court’s strict approach to procedural timelines under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Pragya Jain explains that while the judgment seeks to prioritise substantive justice over procedural defaults, its interpretation of Rule 45 raises important questions about legislative intent, procedural certainty, and the future of trademark prosecution. Pragya is a Senior Associate at Inttl Advocare and

A Procedural Servant or a Master of Delay? A Critical Legal Analysis of the Bombay High Court’s Ruling in Black Diamond Motors Read More »

Brand Name Extensions by Pharma May Finally Be Receiving Scrutiny?

July 8, 2026 / By Praharsh Gour / Drug Regulation, Trademark

On July 6, the Directorate General of Health Services, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), published a notice inviting comments on the use of brand name extensions by Pharma Companies. This stems from a representation made before the Drugs Consultative Committee alleging that a pharma company was selling different formulations under one brand name with different extensions. However, this problem has been a long-standing one, as explained by Prashant and Dinesh Thakur. In effect, this notice seems to be towards

Brand Name Extensions by Pharma May Finally Be Receiving Scrutiny? Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (29 June – 5 July)

July 6, 2026 / By SpicyIP / Biological Diversity, Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

What an eventful week it was, with the post announcing the long-awaited results of the SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition, and posts on legal deposits, black-box AI, and house marks. 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 Announcing the Results of SpicyIP-jhana Blogpost Writing Competition 2025 After carefully reviewing a range of thoughtful and insightful entries from participants across the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (29 June – 5 July) Read More »

Aadhithya Narayanan Madhusudhanan on Reverse Engineering and Aarogya Setu App: Contracting Out of Fair Dealing?
Tekla Corporation vs Survo Ghosh[1]'s opinion seems to unambigously state EULAs can't restrict Sec.52 rights, and further implies TPMs aren't…
maneeshagupta01 on When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision
GHC in M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar vs The Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks on 23 July, 2026 based their reasoning…
Maneesha Gupta on When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision
Yes! GHC based their reasoning on "trappings of courts" doctrine which was not discussed enough in this case, just applied…
Prithvi Raj Kunapareddi on Part I: To CL Or Not To CL: That Ought Not Be The Question
An insightful piece, you aptly put that if Covid-19 did not trigger a use of S92 and 100, one individual…
Anonymous on When Patent Appeals Survive but Patents Don’t: Taking a Look at the DHC Sulzer Decision
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 619 of 2026 The division bench in Gujarat…