Kicking off September with an exciting week featuring posts on the latest guidelines by the Patent Office on the use of AI in patent examination, copyright strikes, the Calcutta High Court order in IPRS v. Hotel Appolo, the Copyright Office’s
Introduction
“With the internet, the question of ‘territorial’ jurisdiction gets complicated largely on account of the fact that the internet is borderless.”
A sentiment raised by Justice Muralidhar in 2010 still rings true in 2026 (has perhaps turned more complicated).
In the time of this oncoming monsoon, it feels like its raining draft guidelines from the Controller General’s office!
The office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has released two new sets of draft guidelines today for
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,
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
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,
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
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
