Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Reaffirms No Statutory Licenses for Broadcast by Online Streaming Services

/ By / Copyright

[This post is co-authored with Swaraj and SpicyIP intern Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu. Sidhi is a final year B.A. LL.B (Hons) student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. He is interested in IP law, and commercial and criminal litigation.] Can Over-The-Top (OTT) Streaming platforms be afforded the same legal protections for broadcasting as conventional mediums? After being answered in the negative by a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court in 2019, this question was once again answered in the […]

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Reaffirms No Statutory Licenses for Broadcast by Online Streaming Services Read More »

Deadline to File Comments/ Suggestions on IP Manuals Extended till November 15, 2023

/ By / Copyright, Design, Geographical Indication, Patent, Trademark

A few days after the October 15th deadline to submit comments/ suggestions to the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) for the revision of the Patent, Designs, Trademark, GI and Copyright Manuals and Guidelines, the CGPDTM has extended the deadline by a month making November 15th as the new deadline to submit these comments. The relevant links to the present manuals and guidelines are given below:- For a quick background reading on some of the

Deadline to File Comments/ Suggestions on IP Manuals Extended till November 15, 2023 Read More »

Chancery Pavilion v. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd: Karnataka High Court’s Problematic Finding on Section 60 Suits

/ By / Copyright

This post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Tejaswini Kaushal. Tejaswini is a 3rd-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She is keenly interested in Intellectual Property Law, Technology Law, and Corporate Law. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Readers would recall that in the past we have written about Government notifications stressing on the menace caused by the threats of legal proceedings (see here and here). Section 60 of the Copyright Act is

Chancery Pavilion v. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd: Karnataka High Court’s Problematic Finding on Section 60 Suits Read More »

Journey Through “Septembers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

/ By / Copyright, Innovation, Others, Patent, Trademark

Image from here. Continuing our Sifting Through SpicyIP Pages series, this post dives into September’s pages and sheds light on some stories, their evolution, or sometimes, their stagnation. In the past, much like intrepid time travelers, we journeyed through the months of June, July, and August, uncovering how some stories like the Mashelkar Report, the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) Bill, the Whistleblower Act, or the Indian “Bayh Dole” Bill, unfolded with time. Without further ado, here’s what I found

Journey Through “Septembers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present) Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 9- October 15)

/ By / Copyright, Patent, Trademark

Wondering what IP developments took place last week? Look no further as we present to you the SpicyIP Weekly Review, highlighting the discussions that took place on the blog along with other IP news. Highlights of the Week  Looking at the DHC’s order in Jainemo Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Shah Through the lens of the DU Photocopy Case Recently the Delhi High Court issued an injunction against unlawful dissemination of Jainemo Pvt. Ltd. (Apna College)’s study material online. How well

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 9- October 15) Read More »

Reforming the Existing IP Legal Research Methodology- an Insight into the Intersection of Empirical and Socio-Legal Research

/ By / Others

It’s no news that there is a dearth of empirical research in the Indian IP landscape. As explained by Swaraj here, it’s a particularly perplexing situation as when one is able to find some data on a specific issue, there is no certainty that the data is accurate or that the data has come out of rigorous methodology. Exploring the idea of reforming the current IP legal research methodology, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by

Reforming the Existing IP Legal Research Methodology- an Insight into the Intersection of Empirical and Socio-Legal Research Read More »

An Update on the Emami  v.  Dabur: A Qualified Right to be Heard  for Ad Interim Injunctions

/ By / Trademark

Recently on October 11, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court clarified that its earlier observation (in Dabur v. Emami), to accord the Respondent an opportunity to be heard before deciding on an ad interim injunction application cannot be seen as an inviolable rule. SpicyIP intern Tejaswini Kaushal writes on this clarification by the Division Bench. Tejaswini is a 3rd-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She is keenly interested in Intellectual

An Update on the Emami  v.  Dabur: A Qualified Right to be Heard  for Ad Interim Injunctions Read More »

Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs: The Question of CRI and 3(k)

/ By / Patent

Recently, on September 15, the Delhi High Court set aside an order from the Indian Patent Office rejecting the patent application on the basis of the old CRI Guidelines, 2016. This decision of the court in Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs, thus opens the pandora box around the mandate within Section 3(k) and its interpretation under the revised 2017 CRI Guidelines, writes SpicyIP intern Yogesh Byadwal in this post. Yogesh is a 3rd year B.A. LL.B.

Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs: The Question of CRI and 3(k) Read More »

Is There More Than Meets the Eye? Delhi High Court and the Recent Section 124 Dilemmas

/ By / Trademark

[The post is co-authored with SpicyIP Intern Tejaswini Kaushal. Tejaswini is a 3rd-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. Her previous posts can be accessed here.] Recent orders by the Delhi High Court in Nadeem Majid Oomberbhoy v. Gautam Tank and Anr. and Mr. Amrish Aggarwal Trading as M/s Mahalaxmi Product v. M/S Venus Home Appliances Pvt Ltd, delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar, have spurred debate and discussion around the application and

Is There More Than Meets the Eye? Delhi High Court and the Recent Section 124 Dilemmas Read More »

The Tale of Indian Dynamic Injunctions Jurisprudence: One Step Forward Two Steps Back

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

We are pleased to bring you a guest post by Krishna Ravishankar and Parul Anand on the evolution of the dynamic injunction jurisprudence in India. Krishna and Parul are third-year students from National Law University Jodhpur. The Tale of Indian Dynamic Injunctions Jurisprudence: One Step Forward Two Steps Back Krishna Ravishankar and Parul Anand Injunction, a veteran tortious remedy for legal infringements, has taken a dynamic form to address novel infringements previously absent in the non-digital domain. The ever-shifting internet

The Tale of Indian Dynamic Injunctions Jurisprudence: One Step Forward Two Steps Back Read More »

Scroll to Top