Trademark

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (21 September- 27 September)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

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 »

Logo of Zara with the word "Zara" written in black.

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2)

/ By / Trademark

The Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA ruling settles one question while leaving another lurking beneath it. A formal declaration, the Court holds, is not necessary to invoke Section 11(2). But if well-known status can be established through individual proceedings, what happens to the certainty that Rule 124 was meant to provide? Harjas Singh Gulati writes on this development below. Harjas is a Trainee Associate at ALG India Law Offices LLP. He is interested in Intellectual property matters along with

No Declaration Required: What the Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA Ruling Means for Section 11(2) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (14 September-20 September)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

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)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

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 »

Well-Known Marks: To Declare or Not to Declare?

/ By / Trademark

Ordinarily, trademark protection is strongest in relation to the identical or similar goods or services for which a mark is registered. Some marks, however, acquire such a strong reputation that the law protects them even against use or registration for dissimilar goods and services. These are known as ‘well-known trademarks,’ and there is a new development concerning them. The Delhi High Court, in Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v Registrar of TMs, on 6th July 2026, ruled that an opponent can

Well-Known Marks: To Declare or Not to Declare? Read More »

Onto Clearing the Jurisdictional Clutter

/ By / Copyright, Others, Trademark

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 »

Jyothy Labs logo featuring a blue flower-like emblem with yellow accents, followed by the words “Jyothy Labs” in blue.

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur

/ By / Trademark

At first glance, Jyothy Labs v. Dabur looks like a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of “NEEM” on toothpaste packaging. But beneath the favourable factual matrix lies a shakier doctrinal foundation, particularly on essential-feature protection, the descriptive–suggestive divide, and passing off. In this post, Harsh Kashyap examines how the Bombay High Court reached what may well be the right result on the facts, while questioning whether parts of its reasoning can safely travel beyond them. Harsh is a

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

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

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30) Read More »

Black-and-white logo of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), featuring a map of India with a spinning wheel at the centre, surrounded by Hindi text and the initials “KVIC,” with a Sanskrit motto below.

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences

/ By / Trademark

When a court finds that its interim injunction has been wilfully breached, should punishment necessarily follow? Harsh Kashyap explores this in light of the Bombay High Court decision in KVIC v. Jaishukh N. Bhuta, explaining how the Court draws an important distinction between establishing disobedience and deciding its consequences, clarifying that Order XXXIX Rule 2A is primarily meant to secure compliance rather than punish past conduct. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. What Follows a Breach?

What Follows a Breach? Bombay High Court Separates Disobedience from its Consequences Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Starting the week with our weekly roundup of key IP developments and posts on Mavyret patent abandonment, calls for comments on new patent and trademark manuals, and the DHC’s decision in Intra Cellular Therapies v. Controller. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know below. Highlights of the Week Mavyret Patent Abandonment Does Not Open the Field for Hepatitis C Generics Does one patent

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 17-August 23) Read More »

Scroll to Top