Browse the archive
The AI & Emerging IPRs section explores the rapidly evolving intersection of artificial intelligence, computational creativity, and Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. We examine how Indian courts, the Patent Office, and the Copyright Office are addressing novel legal challenges surrounding AI-generated works, inventorship criteria for computer-implemented inventions, training dataset copyright liability, and fair dealing defenses.
Additionally, this hub covers allied IP disciplines including trade secret protection, confidential information, semiconductor layout-designs, and plant variety protection under Indian law.
<p>Step-by-step guide to Customs IP recordal in India via the ICER portal. Learn mandatory documentation, indemnity bonds, IPR Enforcement Rules 2007, and how to block infringing imports at Indian ports.</p>
Bombay High Court restrains Yash Lifesciences from using 'YASHLIFE', ruling that its phonetic similarity to 'LIFEBUOY' causes trademark infringement under Section 29.
Geographical Indications in India are governed by the GI Act 1999, providing legal protection to products based on their unique regional origin, reputation, and quality.
<p>Complete guide to Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design (SICLD Act, 2000) in India. Covers SICLD full form, registration requirements, exclusive rights, term of protection, and infringement remedies.</p>
Learn the INDRP framework for resolving domain disputes in India. Master the evidentiary standards for bad faith and protect your trademark from cybersquatting.
The Bombay HC in Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts has issued a landmark John Doe injunction protecting personality rights against unauthorized AI-generated content.
The Delhi High Court in Vikrant Kapoor v. Anuj Kohli ruled that naming a specific forum in invoices effectively ousts other courts, even without 'exclusive' language.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that courts must ensure procedural fairness by linking contempt applications with pending Order XXXIX Rule 4 applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This landmark directive prevents the premature penalization of litigants when an injunction itself is under challenge. For IP practitioners, this decision underscores the tactical necessity of synchronizing interlocutory proceedings in commercial litigation to ensure that the validity of an injunction is adjudicated before breach proceedings are enforced, ultimately upholding the principle of natural justice in high-stakes commercial disputes.
The Delhi High Court has confirmed that all patent and design infringement suits must be adjudicated by the Commercial Division of the High Court to ensure specialized oversight. In Yes Bank v. Modi Rubber, the bench held that Section 104 of the Patents Act 1970 and the Designs Act 2000 are inextricably linked to the Commercial Courts Act 2015. This procedural mandate streamlines litigation, ensuring that complex technical disputes are handled by benches equipped for commercial matters, thereby reducing jurisdictional ambiguity and fostering consistent judicial administration for intellectual property rights nationwide.
Passing off in the food industry frequently involves the unauthorized use of proprietary manufacturing footage to misrepresent the quality and source of food products. When a brand showcases a supplier’s factory as its own, it commits actionable misrepresentation that misleads consumers and violates the supplier's commercial goodwill. As demonstrated in the Zippy vs. Veer Ji dispute, courts are increasingly granting urgent injunctions to protect trade secrets and brand reputation, holding platforms accountable for the rapid removal of deceptive marketing content that manufactures false trust among the public.
