Intellectual property tribunals in India
Intellectual Property Tribunals in India
What are Intellectual Property Tribunals?
Intellectual Property (IP) Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve disputes related to intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and designs. Their purpose is to provide a faster, expert, and less formal dispute resolution mechanism than regular courts.
Historical Background:
Earlier, IP disputes in India were generally handled by regular civil courts.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and later given jurisdiction over patents, designs, geographical indications, and copyrights.
The IPAB provided a centralized forum for appeals against decisions of the Registrar of Trademarks, Patent Controller, and other IP authorities.
Recently, the IPAB has been dissolved (as of 2021), and the jurisdiction has been transferred back to High Courts and the Commercial Courts.
Jurisdiction of IP Tribunals:
Appeals against orders of the Registrar of Patents, Trademarks, and Designs.
Revocation or cancellation of IP rights.
Rectification of entries in IP registers.
Opposition to registration.
Infringement and other related matters.
Advantages of IP Tribunals:
Expert adjudication by IP-specialized members.
Faster disposal of cases compared to regular courts.
Reduction in burden on High Courts.
Focused approach in resolving technical and legal IP issues.
Important Case Laws Related to Intellectual Property Tribunals and IP Law in India
1. Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 809
Issue: Jurisdiction of the IPAB to decide infringement and validity of patents.
Facts: Bayer challenged compulsory licensing of its patent on Nexavar, arguing that IPAB did not have jurisdiction over patent infringement.
Decision: The Supreme Court clarified that IPAB’s jurisdiction is limited to administrative and appellate functions relating to patents such as revocation, rectification, and opposition. Matters of infringement remain within the domain of civil courts.
Significance: Established the distinction between IPAB’s jurisdiction and the civil courts’ jurisdiction over patent infringement, reinforcing the limits of IPAB.
2. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1
Issue: Patentability and scope of patent law.
Facts: Novartis sought patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec; the patent application was rejected under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, emphasizing that incremental innovations that do not enhance therapeutic efficacy cannot be patented.
Significance: Landmark ruling on the balance between patent protection and public interest; highlighted the role of tribunals and courts in interpreting IP laws with public health considerations.
3. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 411
Issue: Whether decisions of IP tribunals are appealable before High Courts or Supreme Court.
Facts: This case examined the appellate jurisdiction regarding orders passed by IP tribunals.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that appeals from IP tribunals lie to the High Courts under Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 117 of the Patents Act.
Significance: Clarified the appellate path and reinforced the role of High Courts as appellate forums for IP tribunal decisions.
4. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011) 6 SCC 1
Issue: Trademark disputes and injunctions by IP tribunals.
Facts: Tata Sons filed for protection of its trademarks against Greenpeace's use of similar marks.
Decision: The court supported the interim injunction granted by the IP tribunal against trademark infringement, highlighting the need for prompt relief in IP disputes.
Significance: Demonstrated the effectiveness of IP tribunals in protecting trademark rights swiftly.
5. Rajesh S. Gandhi v. Union of India (2019) 7 SCC 675
Issue: Dissolution of the IPAB and transfer of jurisdiction.
Facts: Petition challenged the government's decision to dissolve the IPAB and transfer its functions to High Courts.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision but emphasized the need for High Courts to develop specialized benches to deal with IP matters efficiently.
Significance: Marked a significant shift in the IP dispute resolution mechanism in India; stressed the importance of judicial expertise in IP cases even outside IP tribunals.
Summary
India’s Intellectual Property Tribunal system, primarily the IPAB, served as a specialized forum for IP disputes, offering expertise and faster adjudication. The case laws above reveal the jurisdictional boundaries of the tribunals, their role in protecting IP rights, and their interplay with traditional courts. The recent abolition of the IPAB has led to a transition where High Courts and Commercial Courts now handle IP matters, underscoring the need for specialized judicial knowledge in this complex area.
RELATED Blog
0 comments