Kicking off the week with a roundup of exciting IP developments from August 10 to August 16, in this edition of the SpicyIP Weekly Review. Discussions on the DHC’s decision in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja, Guidelines on Section 3(m) examinations by
India’s intermediary liability framework has long struggled to reconcile copyright enforcement with the protections afforded to platforms under Section 79 of the IT Act. This tension has recently been amplified by the Delhi High Court’s directions seeking clarity from Meta
Image from here
[This post is co-authored by Swaraj Barooah and Maneesha Gupta. Maneesha is a fifth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at NMIMS School of Law, Bengaluru, and a participant in the SpicyIP Summer School 2026.]
A part of the
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
How much evidence is enough to establish copyright ownership at the interim stage? Unpacking the Delhi High Court’s latest decision in the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja case, Umeshwari Ranjan explains how the decision offers an important answer, while leaving some questions unanswered about
[The Weekly Review is authored by Vishwas Kumar Tripathi. Vishwas is a 4th year law student at RGNUL, Patiala.]
Posts on MeitY’s stricter compliance rules for takedowns, Delhi High Court’s decision in HBO v. Streamzy[dot]to, Madras High Court’s Bolar judgement
August 6th, Breaking News! The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has introduced stricter compliance rules for social media platforms, significantly reducing the time available to remove “unlawful” content from 36 hours to 3 hours of receiving a government or
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.To attempts to strike a balance between the need to effectively combat online piracy and the concerns raised by increasingly expansive website-blocking orders. Explaining the order, Vikram Raj Nanda
The Madras High Court’s decision in Novartis AG v. Venkata Narayana Active Ingredients offers the first post-trial examination of the evidence required to invoke Section 107A for exports to get regulatory approval. While the Court’s attempt to bring greater evidentiary
Introduction
The Delhi High Court (“DHC”), on 4th May 2026 in Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd., overturned a Single Judge judgment (2023) and granted the mark “ALPHARD” well-known status while affirming its trans-border reputation. The
