Trademark Disparagement, Free Speech and Bullying: The Case of Dabur v. Dhruv Rathee

/ By / Trademark

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Srujan Sangai. Srujan is a second-year BA LLB student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is interested in intellectual property law and technology law.] Dhruv Rathee, a popular Youtuber found himself in a court battle against Dabur India (Dabur India Limited v. Dhruv Rathee) for criticizing its “Real” packaged fruit juice in his (now removed) video ‘Is Fruit Juice Healthy? | The Harsh Truth’. Dabur, who is no stranger to product …

Trademark Disparagement, Free Speech and Bullying: The Case of Dabur v. Dhruv Rathee Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court says Registration of a Design can be Prima Facie Proof of Validity.

/ By / Design

On March 14, 2023, in Sirona Hygiene Private Limited Vs Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd, the Delhi High Court provided three interesting points on the issue of design infringement and piracy, in the context of an equally interesting fact scenario! The plaintiff claims that the registered design of a disposable female urination device titled “Pee Buddy” has been infringed by defendant who allegedly manufactures and sells identical devices under the name “Namyaa”.  The first point is the court’s remark that …

SpicyIP Tidbit: Delhi High Court says Registration of a Design can be Prima Facie Proof of Validity. Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Additional Records Allowed Before Framing of the Issues Says the Delhi High Court

/ By / Trademark

Recently, on 6th March 2023, in Bennett Coleman & Co. vs ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, a case concerning trademark infringement the Delhi High Court allowed the application for placing additional documents on records. But what makes this case worth tidbit-ing is the court’s open remarks and clarifications on adding new documents on record. The Court had stated that the “power … to permit additional documents to be taken on record if a party gives sufficient cause for not filing …

SpicyIP Tidbit: Additional Records Allowed Before Framing of the Issues Says the Delhi High Court Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 20-March 25)

/ By / Copyright, Design, Others, Patent, Trademark

[This weekly review is co-authored with SpicyIP intern Niranjana Biju. Niranjana is a second-year student pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from NUALS, Kochi. She is keenly interested in exploring various fields in law, especially IP, TMT and dispute resolution.] Here are the quick summaries of the 3 posts, 7 case summaries and other IP developments that took place last week. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts?  Please let us know so we can include …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 20-March 25) Read More »

Bombay High Court Grants (the First?) Section 32 License to Translate a Literary Work in Marathi

/ By / Copyright

March is a remarkable month for history and literature buffs because of the whole “ Beware of the ides of March” thing. But IP nerds will specifically remember that eleven years ago, in March 2012, India’s first compulsory license was granted by the Indian Patent Office against Bayer’s Nexavar. One year later, in March 2013 the compulsory license order was upheld by the IPAB in a landmark ruling by the then Chairperson, Justice Prabha Sridevan. And now after 10 years …

Bombay High Court Grants (the First?) Section 32 License to Translate a Literary Work in Marathi Read More »

Jab We Met (if at all): Do Patent Oppositions and Examination Run on a Parallel track? Delhi High Court to Examine

/ By / Patent

In yet another Natco-Novartis matter before the Delhi High Court, a couple of very interesting issues have arisen. While the dispute has been ongoing since 2016, the post will mostly focus on the January 2023 order. One of the issues addressed in the order was regarding the question of whether opposition proceedings are adversarial or do they run on a parallel track with the examination of an application. And the other is whether the patent in question, titled pharmaceutical combinations …

Jab We Met (if at all): Do Patent Oppositions and Examination Run on a Parallel track? Delhi High Court to Examine Read More »

IP Financing in India – Part II: The Supreme Court and (mis)interpretation of Banking Regulation Act, 1949

/ By / Others

Part I of this two-part guest post by Bharat Harne explored the implications of a complicated security perfection regime and non-mandatory registration of copyright on IP financing. Part II focuses on the   Canara Bank v N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr, a Supreme Court decision from 2018, that made some important observations on the use of trademarks as collateral. Bharat is a fourth-year student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. IP Financing in India – Part II: The …

IP Financing in India – Part II: The Supreme Court and (mis)interpretation of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Read More »

IP Financing in India – Part I: Perfection of Security and (Non) Registration of Copyright

/ By / Others

According to Duff and Phelps, and CII’s joint report in 2019 on IP-backed financing, the proportion of tangible assets in the market value of Standard and Poor’s 500 firms has declined from over 80 percent to under 20 percent in the past three decades, thus signifying the rising contribution of intangible assets. It further discusses, indicatively, the times when renowned companies have used IP as central collateral during times of distress. For instance, in 2012 Kodak used its facial recognition …

IP Financing in India – Part I: Perfection of Security and (Non) Registration of Copyright Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 13- March 18)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trade Secret, Trademark, Traditional Knowledge

Here are the quick summaries of 4 posts, 7 case summaries and other IP developments that took place last week. Important IP cases that we’re missing out on? Especially from other High Courts?  Please let us know so we can include them!   Highlights of the week IPD for Madras High Court! The Court Directs the State Government to Notify the Rules Within 1 Week IPD for Madras High Court! In a huge development, the Madras High Court has directed …

SpicyIP Weekly Review (March 13- March 18) Read More »

IPD for Madras High Court! The Court Directs the State Government to Notify the Rules Within 1 Week

/ By / Others

Last month, Lokesh wrote about the Madras High Court order in Galatea Limited v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras, where the court directed the government to notify the inauguration of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD). In a huge development, the court in the case has directed (pdf) the government to notify the IPD Rules except with the rule related to court fees, within 1 week from the receipt of the order, to much relief of IP practitioners …

IPD for Madras High Court! The Court Directs the State Government to Notify the Rules Within 1 Week Read More »

Scroll to Top