Parody, Trademarks, and the IPL: Analysing Delhi HC’s ruling in RCB v. Uber

/ By / Trademark

Finishing the hat trick on the IPL 2025 related IP posts, Aditya Bhargava writes on the recent Delhi High Court judgement in RCB v. Uber over the latter’s advertisement allegedly disparaging the Bangalore based team. For the previous two posts on the other IPL related controversies, covered by Sonisha, see here (on BCCI issuing notice to the “Grade Cricketer” podcast) and here (on Publishers “Champak” magazine suing BCCI for adopting an identical name for their AI Robot dog). Aditya is […]

Parody, Trademarks, and the IPL: Analysing Delhi HC’s ruling in RCB v. Uber Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 5 – May 11)

/ By / Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

The Great Indian Cricket Festival (aka IPL) is in the IP news with the BCCI facing a trademark dispute over naming its AI dog. The BCCI has also demanded an IPL-centric podcast to remove certain images and logos used in their video content. Add to that – posts on a missed opportunity to clarify Section 3(b) by the Cal HC and the IPO, and the technically all over the place CRI jurisprudence in India. Not to forget – we have

SpicyIP Weekly Review (May 5 – May 11) Read More »

“Operation Sindoor” and the Misguided Idea of “Moment Trademarking”

/ By / Trademark

In these tough times of conflict, we saw numerous applications seeking a trademark over the codename of India’s military response against the Pahalgam attack- “Operation Sindoor”. To comment on the surge in these applications, we invited Mr. Sunil Jose to share his views on whether the Trademarks Act allows such applications or not. Mr Jose is a Professor of Practice (Law) at Alliance University, Bangalore and Founder, Suns Legal IP Law Firm, Kochi. He is available at- brandlawyer(at)gmail(dot)com. “Operation Sindoor” and

“Operation Sindoor” and the Misguided Idea of “Moment Trademarking” Read More »

ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b)

/ By / Others, Patent

Long Post Ahead! The Indian Patent Office has its own jurisprudence regarding nicotine/tobacco-related inventions. Bloggers have earlier noted instances wherein the patent office has rejected nicotine/tobacco-related patent applications as violating Section 3(b) (see here, here and here).  While we all were eagerly waiting for the Delhi HC to give its judgement on one such instance, the Calcutta High Court in ITC vs Controller had set aside an order from the Patent Office which had ostensibly refused grant for a nicotine/tobacco-related

ITC vs Controller of Patents: A missed opportunity in clarifying Section 3(b) Read More »

The Champak Controversy: How “Naming A Dog” Led BCCI Into A Trademark Tussle

/ By / Trademark

Recently, the BCCI has been dragged to the Court by the publisher of the popular children magazine “Champak” over adopting an identical name for their AI robot dog. Although the Delhi High Court has issued notice in the case, as per media reports it seems like the plaintiff has made a glaring omission of not adding Section 29(4) in their plaint! SpicyIP intern Sonisha Srinivasan, in her second post on the IP controversies arising out of this year’s IPL season,

The Champak Controversy: How “Naming A Dog” Led BCCI Into A Trademark Tussle Read More »

SpicyIP Tidbit: Fair Dealing or Foul Play? Copyright Claims in An IPL Breakfast Show

/ By / Copyright, Trademark

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Sonisha Srinivasan. Sonisha is a 4th year law student at School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be) University, Bangalore. She is keenly interested in Research, Intellectual property Law, and Media and Entertainment Law.] When “Cricket” meets “Copyright”, sometimes even “Breakfast [podcast] shows” are bowled out. This is in the context of an interesting dispute that involves “The Grade Cricketer” podcast hosted by Sam Perry and Ian Higgins, which had been running a show

SpicyIP Tidbit: Fair Dealing or Foul Play? Copyright Claims in An IPL Breakfast Show Read More »

Comments Invited for Draft Guidelines on Similar Biologics

/ By / Drug Regulation

On May 6, the Central Drug Standard Control Organization published the draft version of the Revised Guidelines on Similar Biologics, inviting comments from the concerned stakeholders. These guidelines were prepared after a Committee composed of technical subject experts, representatives from the National Institute of Biologics, Dept. of Biotechnology, and representatives from industries manufacturing similar biologics. As explained in the introductory pages, the guidelines are revised in light of advances in scientific knowledge and to update the existing guidelines in light

Comments Invited for Draft Guidelines on Similar Biologics Read More »

Image of the flowchart showing the various technical tests used in interpreting S.3(k). Accessible version within the post below.

The State of CRI Jurisprudence in India – “Technically” All Over the Place

/ By / Patent

Some years ago, I had traced out two decades of the ‘confusingly confounding’ regulation of software patents in India. The “ping-ponging” journey traced in that post seems to have been a precursor for the judicial fragmentation that Section 3(k)’s interpretation would soon see. Last week, as a few of us (Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan, Yogesh Byadwal, Anushka Dhankar and myself) were putting together comments for the 2025 Draft Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines and after some grueling work going through as many

The State of CRI Jurisprudence in India – “Technically” All Over the Place Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 28 – May 4)

/ By / Biological Diversity, Copyright, Others, Patent, Trademark

Entering May with posts on the copyright battle between musical maestros AR Rahman and Ustad F W Dagar, USTR 301 Annual Report that keeps India on ‘Priority Watch List’, settlement in the Philips-Vivo SEP showdown, and the Cryogas v. Inox judgment that misses the Section 52(1)(w) mark. Not to forget – we have begun revealing our faculty and experts for the SpicyIP Summer School. More on this here. Here’s a roundup of our blog posts, case summaries and top IP

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 28 – May 4) Read More »

Dagar v. A R Rahman Controversy: Is the Law Out of Tune with Indian Classical Music?

/ By / Copyright

In a copyright battle between two musical maestros, the Delhi High Court, in an interim order, held that the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ from Ponniyin Selvan 2 prima facie infringed the copyright of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar’s musical composition ‘Shiva Stuti’. The film song was composed by ace musical composer A. R. Rahman. In this post, Varsha Jhavar breaks down the Court’s prima facie finding on similarity between the two competing works and infringement, noting several critiques in the Court’s

Dagar v. A R Rahman Controversy: Is the Law Out of Tune with Indian Classical Music? Read More »

Scroll to Top