Supreme Court Stays Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks Guideline Dated 18.05.2020 and 20.05.2020

The Delhi High Court, by virtue of the order dated 21st May 2020 in the case of Intellectual Property Attorney Association (IPAA) and Anr vs The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Anr. the Plaintiff seeked to quash the Public Notice dated 18.05.2020 passed by the Respondent, and thereby restrain them from acting on it, and further, sought direction from the Respondent No. 1 to issue a Clarificatory Notice for all IP statuses, in compliance of the Order passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020.

The Petitioner has placed reliance upon the order given by the Supreme Court on 23.3.2020, which was directed keeping in view the current pandemic, that the period of limitations in all proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the General Laws and Special Laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended, with effect from 15.03.2020, and last until further orders passed by the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner claims that in contradiction, the Respondent passed a new guideline dated 04.05.2020, which starts the limitation period from 25th March 2020 and extends the limitation period only until 18.05.2020, i.e. one day after the expiry if the current Lockdown period.

The Petitioner contends that as per the Supreme Court’s Orders:

1. The protection period of limitation under general and special laws is triggered from the 15.03.2020 and not the 25.03.2020

2. The fixture of the cut-off date as 18.05.2020 for the completion of various act/proceedings, filings, payment of fees, etc. in the matter of any IP litigation is both against the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and also a burden on litigants as well as their advocates.

3. Merely because a skeletal staff is now working in various IP offices, under the administrative control of the Respondent, it cannot lea to a conclusion that the lockdown has ended, and hence by not extending that timelines expiring on 18.05.2020 and thereafter, the Respondent has put the Litigants and Attorneys in a jeopardy by forcing them to move out of their houses and file opposition/counter statements/evidences etc. at the IP offices in order to avoid the application, opposition, rectifications being abandoned. Even the extension of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 17.05.2020 to any outer timeline of 01.06.2020 is placing enormous burden on the stakeholder, as the window is too narrow.

The Counsel for the Respondent, in his defence submits that the petitions (without fee) under Rule 6 (6) of the Patent Rules have been provisioned through e-filing mode and it is also to be notified that delay in transmitting or re-submitting documents to the Patent Office may be condoned/timeline be extended by the Controller General on a Petition made in that respect.

The Court held that:

1. No Court, Tribunal or any authority can act in contradiction to the Order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020, which has been passed in exercise of the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution.

2. Under Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities, whether civil or judicial, located within the territory of India, are required to act in accordance to the Orders passed by the Supreme Court of India.

Therefore, in conclusion, via Oder dated 21.05.2020 the Court held that the best course forward would be to suspend operations of the public notice dated 18.05.2020 and 20.05.2020, as well as directed the Respondents to act in accordance to the Supreme Court notice dated 23.03.2020. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 was directed to file and affidavit within a period of two weeks, in response to the present application. The matter is next listed on 17.06.2020.

References:

[1] https://www.iiprd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Order-21-May-2020.pdf

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010