Methodological Reflections: The “How” of doing Interviews in IP legal Research

/ By / Others

Exploring the use of interviews as a legal methodology in IP research, particularly in the context of field engagement with traditional artisan communities, Niharika Salar shares a reflective piece based on her fieldwork experience as part of her ongoing PhD project. Niharika is a Doctoral Candidate at Queen’s University Belfast, and her previous posts can be accessed here and here. [Long post ahead] Methodological Reflections: The “How” of doing Interviews in IP legal Research By Niharika Salar In IP legal […]

Methodological Reflections: The “How” of doing Interviews in IP legal Research Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 04 – August 10)

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

McDonald’s “Mc” prefix at the centre of a trademark battle, a new twist in the Pertuzumab biosimilar case at the Delhi HC in Roche v. Zydus, trademark and colour combination in the news again in Exide Industries v Amara Raja Energy. This and a lot more on last week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know. Highlights of the Week The “Mc”Monopoly: Is McDonald’s Building a Trademark Empire on a

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 04 – August 10) Read More »

Dura-Line v. Jain Irrigation: Where the Design’s Test Holds Water but TSM Leaks

/ By / Design, Patent

Explaining the Delhi High Court judgement in Duraline v Jain Irrigation, Srishti Gaur highlights how it stands out for its findings on design infringement, but falls short on the obviousness analysis of the suit patent. Srishti is a third-year student at National Law University, Delhi. Her previous post can be accessed here. Dura-Line v. Jain Irrigation: Where the Design’s Test Holds Water but TSM Leaks By Srishti Gaur On 19th May, 2025, in Dura-Line India Pvt Ltd v Jain Irrigation

Dura-Line v. Jain Irrigation: Where the Design’s Test Holds Water but TSM Leaks Read More »

Similar Isn’t Identical? How the Roche v. Zydus Judgment Interprets Section 104A

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court, in its recent Pertuzumab patent dispute decision, interpreted the application of Section 104A in biologics patent disputes. Breaking down the decision, Subhalaxmi Mukherjee writes on what the provision seeks to prevent and how the Court clarified its scope to curb fishing expeditions in pharma patent disputes. Subhalaxmi is a third-year B.Sc LL.B. (Hons.) student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata. She is interested in a wide range of public and commercial

Similar Isn’t Identical? How the Roche v. Zydus Judgment Interprets Section 104A Read More »

Webinar on Breaking Barriers to SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Treatment (August 8)

/ By / Event

The Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment invites you to a webinar on breaking barriers to SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Treatment. The webinar will be conducted on August 8, 6:30 PM. Please read below for the details. Webinar on Breaking Barriers to SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Treatment (August 8) Persons with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) in India face more than a medical diagnosis—they endure systemic delays, financial ruin, and legal battles merely to live. While life-saving treatments like Risdiplam

Webinar on Breaking Barriers to SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Treatment (August 8) Read More »

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 »

Scroll to Top