The Jurisdictional Dilemma Surrounding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Abstract

<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family: " times="" new="" roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"times="" roman";mso-bidi-font-family:="" mangal;mso-ansi-language:en-gb;mso-fareast-language:en-us;mso-bidi-language:="" hi"="" lang="EN-GB">Though the IPAB was constituted as a specialized alternative tribunal to the High Courts in patent and trademark disputes, there are concerns as to its precise role in the existing judicial hierarchy. In light of the jurisdictional overlap between the IPAB and the Registrar of Trade Marks or Controller of Patents as the case may be, concerns have been raised as to the appellate nature of the Board. The situation is further complicated by the conflicting relationship the IPAB shares with the High Courts or District Courts in context of suits for infringement. Whether a litigant in a suit for infringement before the appropriate High Court or district court ought to seek a leave of the said court as to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">prima facie</i> tenability of the plea of rectification of the plaintiff’s trademark before initiating necessary proceedings before the IPAB or the Registrar? The present paper is an endeavour to address the two cited concerns through an analysis of the judicial decisions on the highlighted issues. From a broader perspective, it is an attempt to understand the positioning of the IPAB in relation to the multiple judicial and quasi-judicial authorities functioning within its proximity. </span>