https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Fwho-owns-copyright-ai-generated-content-scott&psig=AOvVaw0Rx3rFyWEipdkCO6l9t7r8&ust=1707668319194000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjRxqFwoTCNjpy6-WoYQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAS

SpicyIP Tidbit: Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry clarifies Current IPR Regime Sufficient for AI Works Protection

/ By / Copyright

In response to a series of unstarred questions regarding copyright infringement by generative AI, directed towards the Minister of Commerce and Industry, Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, Shri. Som Parkash, the Minister clarified that the existing IPR regime is well-equipped to protect Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated works, thus indicating no necessity to establish a separate category of rights. The Current Regime is Sufficient to Address AI Innovations The unstarred question in the Rajya Sabha requested clarification on three […]

SpicyIP Tidbit: Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry clarifies Current IPR Regime Sufficient for AI Works Protection Read More »

A Relook at Business Methods in light of Madras High Court’s Decision in Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller 

/ By / Patent

In Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller, Madras High court rejected the contention that the subject invention was excluded for being business method. The findings of this short judgement have possible significant implications on the jurisprudence regarding 3(k) and business methods in the Patent Act. The judgement comes on the heels of  OpenTV v. The Controller of Patents and Designs in July which had rejected a patent application for being primarily a claim to business method. In this post, I will contrast the two

A Relook at Business Methods in light of Madras High Court’s Decision in Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller  Read More »

Comments on the Proposed Trademarks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024

/ By / Trademark

On January 10, 2023 the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published the proposed Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024. As discussed by Pragya Singh and Lakshita Handa, here, the proposed Rules are marred with inconsistencies and can surely benefit from an assessment through the principles of simplicity, rationality, accountability and accessibility. Right on the heels of their post, we are pleased to bring to you detailed comments on the Proposed Rules authored by Praharsh, Pranav, Swaraj and

Comments on the Proposed Trademarks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024 Read More »

Orange Book & Inaccurate Patents: US Federal Trade Commission in Action

/ By / Data Exclusivity, Drug Regulation, Patent

[This post is co-authored by SpicyIP Intern Pranav Aggarwal and Swaraj Paul Barooah. Pranav is a second-year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons) at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. He has a keen interest in commercial laws, especially in IP and allied fields. His previous posts can be accessed here.] On 7th November 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a press release announcing its challenge to more than 100 patents listed in the ‘Orange Book’. These patents which belong to ten

Orange Book & Inaccurate Patents: US Federal Trade Commission in Action Read More »

A SARAL Analysis of the Proposed Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024

/ By / Trademark

Recently, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) published the proposed Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024 inviting comments on the proposed rules by February 09. However, much like the proposed Patent (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024, the proposed Trade Mark Rules are marred with ambiguities. Assessing the proposed rules from the lens of the SARAL framework, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Pragya Singh and Lakshita Handa. Pragya Singh and Lakshita Handa

A SARAL Analysis of the Proposed Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024 Read More »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2Fofficers-choice-logo-and-tagline-slogan-owner--325174035603956755%2F&psig=AOvVaw2SXNPc45lzA_Rdd44W3m6z&ust=1707385057704000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjRxqFwoTCIirg5P3mIQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

A Case of ‘Smart Copying’: ‘Peace Maker’ Restrained from Imitating ‘Officer’s Choice’

/ By / Trademark

Do you enjoy your whiskey? Would you mix up these two labels: Officers choice and Peace Maker? (image below). Well, it appears the courts think most consumers would. Finding these competing labels to be similar, the Delhi High Court (DHC) recently gave Allied Blenders an interim injunction against Hermes Distilleries following claims of trademark infringement of their label in Allied Blenders & Distillers (P) Ltd. v. Hermes Distillery (P) Ltd.,  This post assesses the propriety of the judicial examination of

A Case of ‘Smart Copying’: ‘Peace Maker’ Restrained from Imitating ‘Officer’s Choice’ Read More »

Wedding Bells or Warning Bells? PPL Refuses to Give an NOC to Play its Sound Recordings at Sangeet, Cocktail Party

/ By / Copyright

Recently, the issue of using sound recordings during wedding festivities popped up again before the Delhi High Court in Canvas Communications v. PPL. SpicyIP intern Reva Satish Makhija discusses the dispute and gives a nuanced understanding of the oscillating debate between the executive and judiciary on this issue. Reva Satish Makhija is a 3rd Year law student at Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat. In her free time, she enjoys collecting old Bollywood movie posters. Wedding Bells or Warning Bells? PPL

Wedding Bells or Warning Bells? PPL Refuses to Give an NOC to Play its Sound Recordings at Sangeet, Cocktail Party Read More »

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 29- February 04)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Patent, Trademark

After an eventful week, here is our recap of its top IP developments. Last week we published 9 posts on topics such as the proposed Patent (2nd Amendment) Rules, the Delhi High Court-Butter Chicken Controversy, and developments regarding the public search and e-register feature of the TMR website. Don’t forget to check them out on the blog too! Highlights of the Week Comments on the Proposed Patent (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2024 In addition to the typos and ambiguity regarding the

SpicyIP Weekly Review (January 29- February 04) Read More »

Semiconductors, IP & India: A Road Less Travelled

/ By / Innovation, Others, Overlaps in IP, Patent

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Pranav Aggarwal. Pranav is a second-year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons) at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. He has a keen interest in commercial laws, especially in IP and allied fields. His previous post can be accessed here.] Some journals have a practice of providing research prompts on which people can potentially write. But I realised that sometimes prompts without a choice can work really well too. Swaraj shared a Youtube link and asked

Semiconductors, IP & India: A Road Less Travelled Read More »

‘Plausibility’ and Admissibility of Post-Published Data in India

/ By / Patent

In May 2023, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Apaxiban patent for lacking “plausibility”. But how does this finding interact with the position of relevant laws in India? Responding to this question, we are pleased to bring to you this guest post by Amit Tailor, discussing whether the “plausibility” requirement is embedded within the Patent Act. Amit is a postgraduate in Pharmaceutical Sciences from National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali)

‘Plausibility’ and Admissibility of Post-Published Data in India Read More »

Scroll to Top