The “Mc”Monopoly: Is McDonald’s Building a Trademark Empire on a Single Prefix? 

/ By / Trademark

Discussing the recent trademark dispute between fast food giant McDonald and Gujarat-based entity McPatel, Siri Gudapati looks at the family of marks concept under the Indian trademarks law and the ill effects of granting exclusivity on prefixes like “Mc”. Siri is a recent BA LL.B. (Hons.) graduate from Jindal Global Law School, and is passionate about intellectual property, technology, media and entertainment law. She was also a part of the SpicyIP Summer School, 2025. The “Mc”Monopoly: Is McDonald’s Building a […]

The “Mc”Monopoly: Is McDonald’s Building a Trademark Empire on a Single Prefix?  Read More »

Too Common to Claim? Rethinking Trademark Boundaries in Colour Protection

/ By / Trademark

Discussing Cal HC’s July 25 interim injunction order in Exide v. Amara, Srishti Gaur explains how the case exemplifies a slippery slope of granting trademark protection over colour schemes. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Too Common to Claim? Rethinking Trademark Boundaries in Colour Protection By Srishti Gaur Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Limited v Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited granted an interim injunction against Amara Energy from using the red and

Too Common to Claim? Rethinking Trademark Boundaries in Colour Protection Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 28 – August 03)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Kickstarting August with posts on “intent principle” vis a vis Section 3(b) and J. G. S Patel (Retd.)’s letter slamming the GLC administration over its notice to take actions against use of the college’s name in a podcast by former students, last week we saw a flurry of 15 posts on the blog! (Also, don’t forget to check out the report recapping the inaugural SpicyIP Summer School edition. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 28 – August 03) Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: “GLC Law and Lore” – Justice Gautam Patel’s Powerful Call

/ By / Others, Trademark

In a highly infuriated and impassioned letter highlighted by Bar and Bench, (Retd.) Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court lambasted a public notice (dated July 31, 2025) issued by Dr. Asmita Vaidya, Principal of Government Law College (‘GLC’), Mumbai. This notice targeted “GLC Law and Lore”, an initiative led by GLC graduates that entails conversations with the institute’s alumni and students to address mentorship needs, share practical legal knowledge, and so on. To that end, the channel has

SpicyIP Tidbit: “GLC Law and Lore” – Justice Gautam Patel’s Powerful Call Read More »

What do you intend?  Section 3(b) and the “intent” principle 

/ By / Others, Patent

Brace Yourself, Long Post ahead!! The Calcutta High Court (“CalHC”), in a set of two judgments, had the opportunity to discuss the scope of Section 3(b). I had previously discussed one of these judgments in detail. In  ITC vs Controller (ITC-I), the CalHC had observed that whether an invention is hit by Section 3(b) is to be judged by the “intent” principle and not the harm principle [para 37]. In another subsequent judgement involving ITC again (ITC vs Controller or

What do you intend?  Section 3(b) and the “intent” principle  Read More »

Event Report of the Inaugural SpicyIP Summer School!

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Event, Patent, Trade Secret, Trademark

Last month saw SpicyIP converting a long-standing idea into reality, with the successful completion of the 2025 SpicyIP Summer School! An idea that had first been mooted maybe a decade or so ago by Shamnad, it was something that we had just not been able to get to for various reasons. This year too, as we moved close to March, we had almost given up on trying for it this year. But fortunately, a conversation with Dr Zakir Thomas took

Event Report of the Inaugural SpicyIP Summer School! Read More »

Seeing Red, Silencing Truth: The Theft and Caste-Washing of ‘Sevvarali Poocharam’

/ By / Copyright

On the Sevvarali Poocharam plagiarism, misrepresentation allegations, Anjali Tripathi writes on appropriation and whether the Indian copyright and other IP laws are equipped to handle such sensitive cases alleging caste based appropriation. Anjali is a fourth-year law student at JGLS with an interest in IP rights, access to education, and the creative arts. Her previous posts can be accessed here. Seeing Red, Silencing Truth: The Theft and Caste-Washing of ‘Sevvarali Poocharam’ By Anjali Tripathi Imagine working for years on something

Seeing Red, Silencing Truth: The Theft and Caste-Washing of ‘Sevvarali Poocharam’ Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: No Work, No Relief? Re-examining the Non-Working of Patents as a Ground to Deny an ad Interim Injunction

/ By / Patent

[This post is authored by Neha Srikanth. Neha is a fourth-year law student at the School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University) Bangalore. She is interested in IPR & TMT Laws.] In Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) recently rejected the application for an interim injunction in a patent dispute. In doing so, the Court held that Conqueror Innovations had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement through their claim mapping. However, interestingly, the Court

SpicyIP Tidbit: No Work, No Relief? Re-examining the Non-Working of Patents as a Ground to Deny an ad Interim Injunction Read More »

Holes in Reasoning? How the Judgement in Crocs v Bata Might be Misunderstood

/ By / Design, Trademark

Taking forward the discussion on the Delhi High Court’s recent Crocs US v. Bata judgment, Priyam Mitra highlights how the Court might not have confused the concepts of design and trade dress. Priyam is a 3rd year student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is interested in contemporary discussions surrounding intellectual property and criminal law.  Holes in Reasoning? How the Judgement in Crocs v Bata Might be Misunderstood By Priyam Mitra A division bench of the Delhi High

Holes in Reasoning? How the Judgement in Crocs v Bata Might be Misunderstood Read More »

The Knowledge Gap in Action: Newgen v. VCare and the Realities of Modern Contracting

/ By / Others, Trademark

Discussing the recent Delhi High Court decision in Newgen v. VCare, Yohann Titus Mathew analyzes the order through the lens of Mateusz Grochowski’s paper- Knowledge Gap in Contract Law, to explain why modern contracts must be drafted keeping today’s fast-paced economy in mind. Yohann is a fourth-year B.Sc. LL.B. (Hons.) [Cyber Security] student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. He is interested in a wide range of law, spanning corporate law, data protection, intermediary liability, and intellectual property. He’s especially

The Knowledge Gap in Action: Newgen v. VCare and the Realities of Modern Contracting Read More »

Scroll to Top