Use this page to scan recent stories from Spicyip, see the themes that keep appearing, and jump into complete story briefs.
Posts on the Delhi High Court’s Zara v Zora ruling, the Madras High Court’s ruling in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah, and a post remembering late Dr. Pinaki Ghosh. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Prof. (D
The Madras High Court’s decision in TCRC v. Ganga Rudraiah may appear to be about the ownership of BTS photographs from the making of the hit film ‘Aval Appadithan‘. But the reasoning gets considerably less straightforward when the Court’s treatment of Section 17(b), consideration, and acquiescence is examined closely.
The Delhi High Court’s ZARA v. ZORA ruling settles one question while leaving another lurking beneath it. A formal declaration, the Court holds, is not necessary to invoke Section 11(2). But if well-known status can be established through individual proceedings, what happens to the certainty that Rule 124 was meant to
The interplay between trademark infringement proceedings and non-use cancellation proceedings under Sections 47 and 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 raises a deceptively simple question: can a Section 47 proceeding trigger a stay of an infringement suit? With the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts taking divergent approach
Welcome back to another week of Bells & Whistles. As always, we’ve rounded up a mix of developments, opportunities, and thoughtful reads from across the IP world along with a Bell of the Week that’s well worth revisiting. Bell of the Week: When You Don’t Know the Name of the Trademark Every now and then, I come across
After another busy week and a long weekend, here we are with the SpicyIP Weekly Review with discussions on the Delhi High Court’s evolving approach to personality rights, a closer look at the Court’s decision in the Sugammadex patent dispute. We also had posts on copyright strikes and intermediary due diligence, the on
The Delhi High Court has been recently grappling with issues concerning Copyright Strikes and takedowns by platforms, which have been necessitating Section 60 suits before the IPD Bench in Delhi. In Saurabh Maurya v. John Doe, CS(COMM) 870 of 2026, the Instagram account of a content creator had been suspended upon copy
The Delhi High Court (“DHC”), in the past month, has seen multiple ongoing cases where social media intermediaries’ copyright strike mechanism has come into question (see here and here). With social media platforms now serving as a principal forum for public expression, and a handful of platforms controlling access to
In continuation of Part 1, this Part tests the arguments run by the Platforms where they state that – striking content upon complaint and terminating accounts with repeated complaints is due diligence which the IT Act and Rules requires. The Concept of a “Voluntary” Takedown The third proviso to Rule 3(1)(d), in force
Ordinarily, trademark protection is strongest in relation to the identical or similar goods or services for which a mark is registered. Some marks, however, acquire such a strong reputation that the law protects them even against use or registration for dissimilar goods and services. These are known as ‘well-known trad
Last week, I wrote a post on a licensing quagmire covering the recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited, which dealt with an important question of whether a hotel needs to take an IPRS license for cable TV to run in its hotel rooms. The Calcutta High Court said yes, and restrained Hotel Appo
In light of the Copyright Office’s refusal to register Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI-generated artwork, holding that DABUS cannot be recognised as its author, Vikram Raj Nanda and Sumukhi Subramanian unpack the decision. They examine what it gets right on originality, authorship and ownership, and where its reasoning on huma
Open the app view when you want faster scanning, saved stories, and source-focused reading in one place.