CGPDTM’s list of scientific advisers and DHC’s decision on “use of a mark” in a trademark infringement case concerning Princeton University and a regular roundup of free or low-cost IP events, along with fellowships, jobs, and scholarships that we think might be useful. This and much more in this week’s SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on? Drop a comment below to let us know.
Rapunzel, Rapunzel, lay down your “lists”: CGPDTM updates the Roll of Scientific Advisers
The Office of CGPDTM recently released the updated Roll of Scientific Advisers under the Patents Rules. While this may look like a routine compliance step, it reflects an important institutional mechanism for plugging the “expertise gap” in Indian IP litigation. Writing on this development, Malobika Sen explores how the Roll connects to Section 115 of the Patents Act, the role of experts in India’s IPDs, and lessons from comparative jurisdictions like the European Union’s Unified Patent Court, the United Kingdom, and Japan.
Princeton’s Partial Win: Rethinking Use, Reputation, and Remedies in Trademark Cases
In a battle between two ‘Princetons,’ the DHC ruled in favor of the Ivy League, clarifying that, as per law, the use of a mark could include third-party usage as well. What are the implications of this interpretation, and how does the court balance it with transborder reputation? Anushka Kanabar explores these questions in her post.
Other Posts
SpicyIP Bells and Whistles: IP Events and Opportunities
From webinars and workshops to internships, curated to keep you in the loop with the latest in the Indian and global IP landscape. Remember, we’re just your friendly IP scouts. Unless we say otherwise, none of these events are run or endorsed by us. Our role here is just to flag events and opportunities you might want to know about!
Case Summaries
Mukesh Chandulal Rathod vs Dineshbhai Valjibhai Sandaniya on 29 September, 2025 (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte order appointing a court commissioner in a trademark and copyright infringement suit concerning the mark/label ‘UMAPATI’. The High Court set aside the order for being beyond the scope of Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, since it was for the purpose of helping the plaintiff collect evidenc and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, i.e., without hearing the defendants, without any urgency to justify it.
Azuga Inc vs Azuga Telematics Llc on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, owners of the registered mark ‘AZUGA’ for GPS fleet tracking services, filed a suit against the defendants for trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. The defendants, including the plaintiff’s ex-employees, had adopted the trade name ‘Azuga Telematics LLC’, an allegedly deceptively similar logo, and had adopted the user interface and images from the plaintiffs’ website. Noting the defendants’ mala fide intent, and the potential reputational harm to the plaintiff from negative reviews for the defendants’ services, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘AZUGA’ and the infringing website content. The Court also directed the domain registrar to lock the defendants’ website.
Universal City Studios Productions vs Isaidub.Spot on 23 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs filed a suit against 106 websites with additional domains for copyright infringement by illegally hosting, streaming, and distributing their cinematograph films. The court granted a broad ‘dynamic+’ injunction, restraining the websites from making the plaintiffs’ content available to the public and also extending coverage to mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the websites to combat their “hydra-headed” nature. The Court also directed the Domain Name Registrants to lock the infringing websites, and ordered Internet Service Providers and government departments to block access to these websites in India.
Mr. Praveen Raj Jayachandran vs M/S. Fusion Vr on 26 September, 2025 (Madras High Court)
The plaintiff filed a suit for copyright infringement for the concepts, software and digital visualizations it created under a draft agreement between the parties that was never executed and ultimately abandoned by the plaintiff after completing 70% of the programming work, due to a dispute over profit sharing. The Court dismissed the suit, holding that while the plaintiff owned copyright in the materials created, there was no infringement since the materials were provided by the plaintiff for use in the parties’ collective project. While rejecting his claim for damages and a share in the defendant’s profits, the Court granted the plaintiff compensation for his provision of services after holding that it amounted to a quasi-contract between the parties.
The Delhi High Court considered a patent infringement dispute concerning ‘Heat Exchanger Plate and Plate Heat Exchanger’. The defendants, while denying infringement, offered to allow inspection of their product ‘CEFF 35’ by an independent scientific advisor. With consent of both parties, the Court appointed Prof. Sudipto as the Scientific Advisor under Section 115(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
M/S Gopika Industries vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff alleging infringement of its ‘DYAL’ trademark used for business of selling cattle feed. The defendant is a registered user of ‘DAYAL’ mark in the industry of manufacturing and marketing cattle feed. The Court dismissed the defendant’s application, holding that the relevant date for prior use is the Plaintiff’s registration date of April 4, 1996, not the date of first commercial invoice in 2001, as per the precedent in Worknest Business Centre LLP v. Worknests. The plaintiff’s pre-2001 documents evidenced intent to use the mark commercially, establishing the Plaintiff as the prior user. The matter is listed for further hearing on December 12, 2025.
Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited vs Anoop Agarwal & Anr on 24 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present petition is filed seeking a rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of respondent no.1’s trademark. The petitioner is the registered user of mark ‘Rani’ since 2000, has been using artistic labels for ‘Ragini’ and ‘Rachna’ since 2007, created by M/s Aman Art Gallery. The petitioner claimed that respondent no.1’s label is deceptively similar in color scheme (yellow and red), writing style, tagline (‘SMILE POLYSTER SAREE FALL’), placement of elements like ‘New Pack’, and overall arrangement, violating the petitioner’s copyrights and trademarks. The Court, after examining the labels, found similarities, concluded that respondent no.1 has copied the petitioner’s artistic work, and ordered the cancellation of respondent’s trademark. The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
The plaintiffs, Eastern Book Coy filed a suit against the defendant for passing off, alleging infringement of their distinctive trade dress in the ‘coat-pocket’ edition of the Constitution of India Bare Act. Since 2009, the plaintiffs have published these portable editions with a signature black-red color scheme, specific font, gold leafing, and overall presentation on thin bible paper, building significant goodwill through sales of over 1,04,805 copies and investments exceeding Rs. 75 lakhs in advertising. They are renowned in legal publishing, including SCC Online and Supreme Court Cases reports. Despite a cease-and-desist notice, the defendant continued infringing the trade dress. The Court, finding prima facie deceptive similarity in trade dress likely to confuse consumers, granted an interim injunction. It restrained the defendant, its agents, and associates from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, or selling coat-pocket editions of the Constitution in the red-black style similar to the plaintiffs’. The defendant was directed to recall unsold inventory and remove listings from e-commerce platforms.
Cipla Health Limited vs Micro Labs Limited & Ors on 24 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for its registered trade mark ‘COFSILS’. It alleges that the defendant is using the mark ‘DOLOSILS’ for lozenges and cough syrups which is similar to the plaintiff’s mark. The Plaintiff demonstrated long use, registrations, and distinctive packaging features of its COFSILS range, arguing that the Defendants had engaged in ‘smart copying’ by adopting a deceptively similar name, font, colour scheme, motifs, and overall get-up, thereby creating consumer confusion. The Defendants initially denied infringement but agreed to discontinue the cough syrup packaging while seeking time to exhaust existing stock. They also claimed the suffix ‘SILS’ was descriptive and linked to ‘tonsils. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their affiliates, and manufacturers from using the impugned trade dress/packaging or any deceptively similar variants for medicinal products. However, the Defendants were not barred from using the wordmark DOLOSILS in a distinct font and styling. The matter is referred to mediation at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, and further hearing is scheduled for 19.11.2025.
Akkineni Nagarjuna V Www.Bfxxx.Org on 25 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff alleged that a number of pornographic sites and online merchants were using his name, photos, and likeness without his permission, such as the sale of T-shirts with his image on them, such unauthorized use infringed his personality and publicity rights and damaged his reputation. The defendants consisted of several websites, Domain name registrars (DNR), merchandise sellers, and unknown “John Doe”. The Court held that the plaintiff enjoys celebrity status, with established goodwill and reputation, and that unauthorized use of his persona could dilute his dignity and reputation.The Court granted an interim injunction, directing the websites to take down infringing content, sellers to block merchandise listings, and authorities to disable access to such URLs.
The plaintiffs, sued Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and others for infringing their SEPs (Standard Essential Patents) relating to 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies. They claimed compliance with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory) obligations but alleged the defendants continued making and selling infringing devices without licenses for which they sought urgent interim relief. The Court, permitted filing of confidential and voluminous documents in sealed electronic formats, allowed amendments to include additional patents or devices, granted discovery through interrogatories. Furthermore, summons were issued, deadlines for pleadings are fixed, and the case is listed for hearing on the interim injunction application on 28 January 2026.
The Appellant approached the Delhi High Court under Section 151 of the CPC asking for an injunction against the registration of the mark of the Respondent “TeaNOURISH” in class 30. The Appellants are themselves prior users and proprietors of the label mark “NOURISH” under class 30. The respondent argued that the Appellants, through their label mark, did not get an exclusive right over the word mark “NOURISH”. The Court, however, noted the overlapping trade channels and consumer base and stated that the word “Tea” here was merely descriptive and complimentary in nature, making this an irrefutable case of deceptive marks likely to cause confusion.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr vs Natco Pharma Limited on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN334397 concerning the drug ‘Risdiplam’. An earlier application for interim injunction was dismissed by the Single Judge, but on appeal, the Division Bench directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the launch of the product, and judgment in the appeal was actually reserved. In the present proceedings, Natco sought to place an affidavit by its Vice President–IPR, Dr. Pratima Jain, on record. The affidavit stated that Natco had received requests from researchers and institutions to conduct academic clinical trials of Risdiplam under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019. Natco argued that filing the affidavit was necessary to avoid any allegation of contempt of the Division Bench’s interim order. The Court, however, held that since the appeal was already reserved for judgment, the affidavit was not relevant to deciding the suit, it could not be placed on record and the application was accordingly dismissed.
Estuaries Industries filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court to set aside the order of a Judicial Magistrate refusing their trademark application for ‘BLEND IT’ for products related to aerated/mixing waters meant to pair with alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The Registrar had also earlier rejected this application, citing Section 9(1)(b) and Section 11(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Gujarat HC ruled in favour of Estuaries Industries, noting that the Registrar had failed to take into account a prior registration by Estuaries Industries of a trademark ‘BLEND IT RIGHT’ which had been in continuing usage since October 2020. Estuaries Industries had also argued that ‘BLEND IT’ was already used by them as a tagline, and that this mark was distinguishable in font, graphics and logo placement with the cited mark. Accordingly, the Court set aside the refusal and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application within six months.
Fullife Healthcare filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off and sale of counterfeit nutraceuticals under their registered trademark CHICNUTRIX primarily against sellers on the MEESHO platform. They contended that several sellers on the MEESHO platform were selling counterfeits of their products using their trademark and that the MEESHO platform had allowed such sellers using fake or expired FSSAI licenses to sell such products, causing misrepresentation, consumer confusion and damage to Fulllife’s goodwill and reputation. The Court, noting the requirement for ‘urgent interim relief’, dispensed with the mandatory mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and passed an order preventing the defendants from selling, distributing, or listing counterfeit products under the ‘CHICNUTRIX’ mark, and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Novex Communications filed a suit for a quia timet injunction before the Bombay High Court against Bennett Coleman, apprehending that they would play copyrighted sound recordings at an upcoming event without their permission. Novex owns copyrights to a large collection of songs, including music from big labels like Zee, Tips, Saregama, and Yash Raj Films. They claimed that Bennett Coleman had already committed similar infringement in the recent past at the Ahmedabad Times Fashion Week (29th – 31st August 2025) by playing the song “Khoya Hai” without a license and argued that similar infringement could happen at the upcoming event, the Bombay Times Fashion Week scheduled in Mumbai. The Court, noting that the defendant was served but did not appear, found that Novex had a strong prima facie case. The Court granted an ad-interim injunction, preventing Bennett Coleman and its associates from publicly performing or communicating any copyrighted sound recordings owned or licensed to Novex.
The Plaintiff, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals, filed an permanent injunction suit alleging infringement, passing off, dilution and unfair competition due to deceptive similarity in the impugned mark “CUBANEX”. The Defendant’s marks, “CUBANEX” and “CUBANEX-CZS” and their respective packaging (trade dress) was found to be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered and well established trademark and trade dress which was inclusive of similarities in color, font, logo placement and table arrangement. DHC ruled in favour of the Plaintiff as they established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement as there is likelihood of confusion due to visual and phonetic similarity in the trademarks, identical products and identical consumer base.
Ritvik Bansal (Proprietor Of M/S 7R) vs Rahul Arora on 22 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Ritvik Bansal brought a permanent injunction suit for copyright and trademark infringement against the Defendant, Rahul Arora who used to be a freelance media buyer for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant copied the Plaintiff’s original artistic works (images, videos, texts and layouts) and used them as his own branding under a competing business called “Casence” on websites and social media platforms. It was also alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant had taken verbatim product images, text advertising frames, marketing designs and descriptions. The Defendant allegedly reproduced the aforementioned on their own website and social media platforms sometimes leaving the Rezoni trademark visible. The DHC granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant and his affiliates from using, selling, manufacturing or advertising from the Plaintiff’s mark “Rezoni” or the artistic works of the Plaintiff.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. & Anr vs Abdus Salam Khan on 19 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiffs brought a suit of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, Abdus Salam Khan on grounds of trademark infringement restraining the Defendant from infringing their registered trademark “Gaurav Gupta” and the copyright over their original garment designs, registered designs, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition. It is alleged by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant’s media presence through YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and marketed counterfeit garments imitate the Plaintiff’s original designs carrying the GAURAV GUPTA trademark misleading consumers into associating it with the Plaintiff’s registered and well-established trademark. DHC granted a permanent injunction in the favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the use of the trademark and copyright over the Plaintiffs’ designs merging the interim injunction in the final decree. The Court awarded damages worth Rs. 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff to be paid by the Defendant due to the latter’s negligent conduct and to deter any further infringement.
Mankind Pharma Limited vs Carens Pharmaceuticals on 19 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited, filed an application seeking an urgent interim relief against the Defendant, Carens Pharmaceutical, for allegedly infringing its registered trademark “CALCIMUST” used for veterinary products. The Plaintiff also claimed copyright protection over their mak’s associated artwork. The Court found that the Defendant was selling veterinary products under the deceptively similar trademark “CALDIMUST” given its similarity in the label which mimicked layout, color, schemes, animal silhouettes which is capable of causing consumer confusion and diluting the brand reputation attached to the Plaintiff. The Defendant and its affiliates were restrained from using, manufacturing, selling or advertising any products under the infringing trademark “CALDIMUST” or any other similar trademark or label which is likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Plaintiffs filed an application for interim relief against the Defendant/s which included unknown entities (often called John Doe/Ashok Kumar) for allegedly infringing the Plaintiffs’ trademark and copyright involving the well-known marks “OLA” and “OLA ELECTRIC” marks and for allegedly counterfeiting automotive components like Integrated Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs) and belts. On the Plaintiffs’ demonstration of substantial goodwill and reputation in the OLA marks along with high turn over and wide distribution networks and major investments in R&D, marketing and branding, the DHC found that the counterfeit products of the Defendants could pose a serious threat due to inferior quality and public safety and consumer protection as a whole. The Court found that the acts of the Defendants constitute trademark infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 and unfair trade practices. Thus, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants and its affiliates from using, manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing with the counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiffs’ registered and well known OLA trademarks or any other deceptively confusing marks.
Basf Se vs Ulink Agritech Private Limited on 25 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
BASF SE brought a suit of permanent injunction against the Defendant, ULINK, regarding alleged trademark infringement, passing off and dilution of the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘TYNZER’ and ‘टनज़र’ for agro-chemical products. The products of the Defendant use the impugned trademark ‘ENTYZER’ in the same goods and services as that of the Plaintiff’s with the same active ingredient i.e., Topramezone. The Plaintiff’s claim that the adoption of the impugned mark by the Defendant leads to confusion among farmers who are the relevant consumer base. On the question of evidence, the Plaintiff provided the with the online presence of the Defendant’s products on IndiaMart addressing likelihood of confusion due to overall visual and phonetic similarity especially among illiterate farmers and the prima facie dishonest adoption by the Defendant. Whereas, the Defendant highlighted that the Plaintiff has delayed in filing the suit as they were aware of the use since 2015 and brought a suit in 2024, and claimed differences in the rival marks focussing on suffix and structure. DHC granted interim injunction to the Plaintiff as the triple test was satisfied and a valid prima facie case was made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Due to the urgency of the matter, the DHC exempted pre-institution meditation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In conclusion, the Defendant and its affiliates are restrained from using/manufacturing/selling under the deceptively similar mark ‘ENTYZER’.
M/S Jewellery Mall vs Mohd. Noorain on 26 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Plaintiff, M/S Jewellery Mall, filed an application for an ex-parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant Mohd. Noorain under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC. The Plainitiff, a jewellery manufacturer and retailer established a strong presence of their brand “Jewellery Mark” having continous use and reputation along with iys device mark since 2008 via the predecessor-in-interest, M/s Abhishek Enterprises. The Plaintiffs have had a consistent business since 2012-2015 as reevaled through trademark registrations and copyright with detailed revenue data. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant dishonestky adoped the deceitively similar mark, ‘New Jewellery Mall’ and a device mark, which was used by them on social media, third party platforms (like Justdial, Indiamart and Justdial) along with the Defendant’s own website which results in confusion in marketplace. Moreover, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s conduct reveals deliberate imitation of the Plainitff’s lawful registered marks and the acornym of brand “JM” which is aimed to ride on Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. DHC found that the Plaintiff is a prior and honest adopter of the mark “Jewellery Mall/JM” and also established continuous use. On applying the triple test, the DHC found balance of convenence lying in favour of the Plaintiff and ruled that the Defendant prima facie dishonetsky adoped the mark with an intention to cause confusion among consumers.
The Plaintiff, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed a permannent injunction suit against the Defendants allegging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off and unauthorised fraudulent use of the name ‘Samsung’ brand on impugned domains resembling the Plaintiff’s mark and name “SAMSUNG”. DHC granted injunction in favour of the Plaintiff ruling that the Defendants’ use of the ‘Samsung’ mark as a part of the unauthorited domains and website layout was dishonest and likely to cause confusion among the consumer base. DHC instructed Defendant Nos. 1-3 to restrain from using the Plaintiff’s well-known layouts, marks or any other representation which could wrongfully associate it with the Plaintiff’s lawful and registered trademark in domains, websites, social media handles or otherwise. Additionally, Defendant Nos. 4-6, the domain registrars, were instructed to lock/suspend/disable access to impugned domains within 72 hours and submit relevant domain name registrations to the court.
Mars Incorporated vs Cosmo First Limited And Ors on 15 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Mars Incorporated, is the proprietor of registered trademarks “KIT-E-KAT” and “KITEKAT” used for cat food, alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling similar products under the mark “KIT CAT”, which was phonetically, structurally and conceptually similar to its registered marks. Mars claimed that this amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, and was intended to mislead consumers and ride on its international goodwill. The Delhi High Court observed the defendants’ mark created a high likelihood of confusion, and it is a case of triple identity, i.e., marks were identical, product category was identical, and trade channel plus consumer base was also identical . The Court found a prima facie case of infringement, and it granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the “KIT CAT” mark.
Micro Labs Limited vs Pharma Roots Healthcare & Anr on 16 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff, Micro Labs Ltd, is a leading pharmaceutical company, which had initiated a suit against the defendants, Pharma Roots Healthcare, to seek a permanent injunction against it based on infringement of its registered trademarks, “ESOFAG” and “ESOFAG HCP”. Micro Labs claimed that the defendants were manufacturing and selling drugs under the deceptively similar marks “ESOVAG”, “ESOVAG DSR”, “ESOVAG IT”, and “ESOVAG LSR” on netmeds. The same also used the same active ingredients, including Esomeprazole Magnesium Trihydrate Salt, the plaintiff argued that such imitation was intended to deceive consumers and ride upon its goodwill. The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and held that the marks were visually and phonetically similar. Accordingly, it granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect and seize infringing goods from the defendants’ premises.
Lt Foods Middle East Dmcc & Ors vs Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd on 19 September, 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiffs, LT Foods Middle East DMCC and its subsidiaries, were registered proprietor of trademarks “817” and wordmark “ROZANA”. The same were used extensively for their rice products worldwide. They alleged that the defendant, Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., was selling rice under the marks “ROZANA” and mark “818”, which were identical or deceptively similar to their trademarks. This, they argued, actually amounted to trademark infringement, also it was likely to mislead consumers and harm the goodwill attached to their products. The Delhi High Court observed that the defendant’s adoption of “818” and “ROZANA” appeared mala fide, intended to exploit the plaintiffs’ established reputation. The court found a prima facie case of infringement and likelihood of confusion, following which the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize infringing goods from the defendant’s premises.
The plaintiffs, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul), alleged that the defendants, including Rishabh Kaushal, disparaged their brand through social media videos showing alleged animal cruelty. Amul claimed these posts defamed its products and sought damages and a permanent injunction. However, the defendant claimed that the videos were not to target Amul but to sensitize people on the issue of animal cruelty, and that after court’s notice, he had deleted all the posts and social media accounts. The Delhi High Court noted the defendant’s prompt corrective action and Amul’s failure to produce any evidence of financial loss or reputational damage and held that no prima facie case for damages was made out. The Court decreed the suit only to the extent of granting a permanent injunction and directed the defendants to provide an undertaking not to use or disparage the “Amul” mark in future.
Other IP Developments
International IP Developments
Thanks to Anushka Kanabar, Riddhi Bhutada, Vikram Nanda, Mayank Yadav and Arshya Wadhwa for the case summaries.