Thou Shalt not Register Your Trade Union with a Name in the Likeness of My Trademark

Discussing the recent controversy around Samsung India’s opposition to it’s workers’ application seeking to register ‘Samsung India Thozhilalar Sangham, under the Trade Union Act, Bharathwaj examines previous instances where trade unions have locked horns with trademark laws and assesses whether the Trademarks Act extends protection to proprietors against the use of their marks in any trade union’s name. Bharathwaj is a 3rd year LLB Student at RGSOIPL, IIT Kharagpur and loves books and IP. His previous posts can be accessed here. […]

Thou Shalt not Register Your Trade Union with a Name in the Likeness of My Trademark Read More »

Don’t Offend My Oats: Generic Disparagement, Market Leadership, and Marico Limited vs. Alpino Health Foods

Trademark law has an interesting concept—generic disparagement that goes a bit further than general disparagement. In this post, I discuss one such case from the Delhi High Court: Marico Limited vs. Alpino Health Foods Pvt Ltd, where the plaintiff (“Marico”) seemed to take the whole “disparagement” thing a bit too personally (or perhaps, generally). Facts: The story has it that Marico has been in the oats business since 2010 and sells it under the name “Saffola Oats,” but it has

Don’t Offend My Oats: Generic Disparagement, Market Leadership, and Marico Limited vs. Alpino Health Foods Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 4-November 10)

Here is our recap of last week’s top IP developments including summary of the posts on the repudiations against personality rights, Govt. recent circular on procurement of drugs, non-obviousness test under the patents law, and the Hamburg Regional Court’s decision in Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V. This and a lot more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.  Highlights of the Week Logical Fallacy in Patent Law:

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 4-November 10) Read More »

Logical Fallacy in Patent Law: Analysing Abolkheir’s Challenge to the Soundness of Non-obviousness Test

In his recent work published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Dr. Mo Abolkheir argues that the prevailing interpretation of ‘inventive steps’ places emphasis on the inventor’s imaginative capacity rather than the invention itself. Bhuwan Sarine discusses and analyzes this perspective, offering his thoughts on Dr. Abolkheir’s approach. Bhuwan is a third year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is interested in Intellectual Property Laws and the dynamic intersection of

Logical Fallacy in Patent Law: Analysing Abolkheir’s Challenge to the Soundness of Non-obviousness Test Read More »

Part III: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet……. The Show Must Go On?

In the third part of his three part post on personality rights, Akshat discusses the real implications of granting broad personality rights to celebrities. Part I and II of this post can be accessed here and here. Akshat is a practicing litigator working at Saikrishna and Associates. He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. His previous posts can be found here. He would like to thank Sneha Jain and Angad Makkar for their

Part III: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet……. The Show Must Go On? Read More »

Part II: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet……. The Show Must Go On?

Continuing to debunk the myth around the need for a higher degree of protection to celebrities, Akshat Agrawal in Part II of his post discusses some more repudiations justifying the use of celebrities’ names, images, likeness and voices. Akshat is a practicing litigator working at Saikrishna and Associates. He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. His previous posts can be found here. He would like to thank Sneha Jain and Angad Makkar

Part II: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet……. The Show Must Go On? Read More »

Part I: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…….The Show Must Go On?

[This three part post is authored by Akshat Agrawal. Akshat is a practicing litigator working at Saikrishna and Associates. He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. His previous posts can be found here. He would like to thank Sneha Jain and Angad Makkar for their comments and discussion. He adds the following disclaimer: After some discussion around an earlier draft and an admitted history of verbosity, I would also like to acknowledge

Part I: The Right to Publicity: 31 Years Since Madow’s Scathing Verdict, Yet…….The Show Must Go On? Read More »

https://imgflip.com/i/91ilzk

Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines

[A big thanks to Swaraj for his inputs in this piece and to Aditi Bansal for her help in curating the database below.] A Sweet Pill to Swallow? On August 9, 2024, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Government of India, issued a circular (pdf) for a Global Tender Enquiry to increase the threshold for procurement of 127 medicines instead of the previously decided 120, inviting tenders for up to 200 crore, further extendable as required. Drugs for rare diseases also

Curing the Rare: Government Issues Tender to Acquire 17 Patented Rare Disease Medicines Read More »

Delhi High Court Clarifies that the Obligation to Serve Counter Statement Does Not Fall on the Applicant (Sun Pharma v. Dabur)

Trademark lawyers in India can breathe a sigh of relief after an important clarification by the Delhi High Court regarding the duty to serve counter statements under the Trademarks Act. Recently, the Court accepted a review application (pdf) by the Intellectual Property Attorneys’ Association against the judgement passed in Sun Pharma v. Dabur India, wherein the Court had seemingly imposed the obligation to serve a Counter Statement to the Opponent, on the Applicant, instead of the Registrar. In the impugned

Delhi High Court Clarifies that the Obligation to Serve Counter Statement Does Not Fall on the Applicant (Sun Pharma v. Dabur) Read More »

Taming the ‘LAION’: Lessons for Harmonising AI and Copyright Law

Discussing the Hamburg Regional Court’s landmark decision in Robert Kneschke v LAION e.V., on text data mining and its interpretation as an exception to allegations of copyright infringement, SpicyIP Fellowship applicant Tanishka Goswami highlights the key findings of the Court and explores the probable lessons for Indian policymakers in harmonizing copyright with AI and innovation. Tanishka is an advocate at the High Court of MP. She graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2023 & enjoys reading and writing on

Taming the ‘LAION’: Lessons for Harmonising AI and Copyright Law Read More »

Scroll to Top