Jyothy Labs logo featuring a blue flower-like emblem with yellow accents, followed by the words “Jyothy Labs” in blue.

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur

/ By / Trademark

At first glance, Jyothy Labs v. Dabur looks like a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of “NEEM” on toothpaste packaging. But beneath the favourable factual matrix lies a shakier doctrinal foundation, particularly on essential-feature protection, the descriptive–suggestive divide, and passing off. In this post, Harsh Kashyap examines how the Bombay High Court reached what may well be the right result on the facts, while questioning whether parts of its reasoning can safely travel beyond them. Harsh is a […]

Saved by the Facts: A Critical Look at the Doctrinal Stretches in Jyothy Labs v. Dabur Read More »

Reforming Legal Deposit: Why the Jan Vishwas Amendment Falls Short

/ By / Copyright, Others

This post has been co-authored with Charan Ashok. Charan is a fifth-year B.A., LL.B (Hons) student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The Delivery of Books Act, 1956 (“DB Act”), one of India’s most forgotten statutes, has been amended via the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2026. The said Amendment Act was notified in the e-Gazette on 8th April, 2026 and has come into force. The amendments modify the penalty provisions of the DB Act and

Reforming Legal Deposit: Why the Jan Vishwas Amendment Falls Short Read More »

Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision in Thaler

/ By / Copyright

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 human creative control and AI disclosure leaves questions unanswered. Vikram is a fourth-year student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, with a keen interest in IP law, Competition Law, and

Originality Without Authorship: Analysing the Copyright Office’s Decision in Thaler Read More »

Room Service, Rates, Licenses: IPRS v Hotel Appolo

/ By / Copyright, Others

You switch on the TV in a hotel room, and you have entered into a licensing quagmire! Does a hotel need to pay royalties to copyright societies for the content in the television sets of their guest rooms?  The recent dispute between IPRS and Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited deals with this question. The dispute began in the District Court of Darjeeling, which refused to grant IPRS an interim injunction against Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited. In an order

Room Service, Rates, Licenses: IPRS v Hotel Appolo Read More »

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.09.2026)

/ By / Courses & Workshops, Opportunities

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: 30 Years of the WIPO Internet Treaties What did copyright law look like when the Internet arrived?  This week’s Bell takes us back to 20 December 1996, when the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and

SpicyIP Bells & Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities (01.09.2026) Read More »

Copyright Strikes and Free Speech: Rethinking Automated Takedowns on Social Media

/ By / Copyright

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 much of this speech, the consequences of automated content removal extend beyond private copyright disputes. Under such mechanisms, social media intermediaries automatically take down allegedly infringing content merely based on

Copyright Strikes and Free Speech: Rethinking Automated Takedowns on Social Media Read More »

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable?

/ By / Patent

In Part I of the post, I discussed the contents of the Guidelines and how using AI may cognitively affect the officers while examining a patent application.  From Personal Satisfaction to Institutional Accountability: Where does the Buck Stop? Now, I understand that some of the arguments in Part I are targeted towards the idea of using AI in patent examination and not the Guidelines per se. However, despite all the caveats for human oversight, the Guidelines state that the concerned

[Part II] AI in the Patent Office: When Human Oversight Fails, Who Is Accountable? Read More »

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination?

/ By / Patent

The CGPDTM issued new guidelines on August 7, this time to regulate AI use in the patent examination process. In a 16-page document followed by annexures of illustrative examples and a checklist for the officers, the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures seek to maintain a balance between harnessing the benefits of using AI tools in patent examination while ensuring that their use does not compromise the technical, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions of the Office. 

[Part I] AI in the Patent Office: Can Human Oversight Neutralise AI’s Influence on Patent Examination? Read More »

Image with SpicyIP logo and the words "Weekly Review"

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30)

/ By / Copyright, Drug Regulation, Others, Patent, Trademark

After an action-packed week, we have posts remembering one of the most remarkable IP administrators– Mr. P. H Kurian, on the appointment of an amicus in the Vivek Oberoi personality rights case, and on the DHC decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents. This and much more in the last Weekly Review of the month. Anything that we are missing out? Drop a comment and let us know. Highlights of the Week Remembering Mr. P. H. Kurian

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 24-August 30) Read More »

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents highlights a basic but important point: patent objections must be tied to the claims and evidence, not merely asserted. Harsh Kashyap explains how the Court applied this principle to objections on inventive step, Section 3(d), and Section 3(i), while also flagging the questions the judgment leaves unresolved. Harsh is a 3rd-year B.Sc. LLB student at NFSU Gandhinagar. Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order

Merely Citing Isn’t Applying: Looking at the DHC Order in Array Biopharma v. Deputy Controller Read More »

Scroll to Top