Delhi High Court comes up with the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) for handling IP matters

With the abolishment of various Boards and Appellate Tribunals by Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which was promulgated by the President of India and was notified on 4th April 2021, The Delhi High Court (DHC) has now established an Intellectual Property Division (IPD) to deal with matters related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

Delhi High CourtThe 2021 ordinance amended Acts namely – (i). Trade Marks Act, 1999, (ii). Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, (iii). Patents Act, 1970, (iv). Copyright Act, 1957, (v). Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, (vi). Cinematograph Act, 1952, (vii). Customs Act, 1962, (viii). The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, (ix). National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and (x). The Finance Act, 2017. The 2021 Ordinance amended these acts and abolished various Boards and Appellate Tribunals that existed under these statutes. Accordingly, with the abolishment of the boards and tribunals, the power to deal with all such pending matters has now been vested with the High Court. For the Intellectual Property cases, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) dealt with appeals from the IP offices. Abolishing IPAB led to a substantial number of pending cases, which count to around 3000 cases including cases of revocation of Trade Marks, Patents, to be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, as per the official press statements.

In addition to the cases being transferred to the Delhi High Court, the court is already seized various categories of IPR matters namely suits relating to Infringement of Trade Marks, Copyrights, Patents, Writ Petitions, Revision petitions arising from IPR suits before the Commercial Courts, appeals from orders/judgments of the Commercial Courts concerning IPR suits, etc.

For an effective streamlining and review of a large influx of IPR cases in the Delhi High Court, a committee was constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, Justice D.N. Patel for deciding over this issue. The committee consists of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. Based on their recommendations, Hon’ble the Chief Justice directed the creation of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) at the DHC to deal with all matters related to Intellectual Property Rights.

Not only with the original proceedings but the IPD would be configured to also deal with the Writ Petitions (Civil), CMM, RFA, FAO relating to Intellectual Property Rights disputes (except those which are required to be dealt with by the Division Bench). The bench for IPD will be notified timely by Hon’ble the Chief Justice with the chances of creating exclusive IPD benches for dealing with such cases.

The Press release stated that “Office-Order is also going to be issued specifying nomenclature to be given to such petitions and also about payment of court-fee for such matters. The Delhi High Court is also in the process of framing comprehensive Rules for the IPD. A committee has already been constituted for framing of the `Delhi High Court Patent Rules’ which shall govern the procedures for adjudication of patent disputes before the Delhi High Court. The first draft of these Rules has already been notified for stakeholders’ comments, which have been received.”

Coming up on the line with the global practice, the creation of IPD will be a significant step for effectively disposing of the matters of IPR. Such IP Division or IP Court exclusively for IPR matters are also in various jurisdictions such as UK, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, China, etc.

The IPD would be governed by the IPD Delhi High Court Rules which are in the process of being framed. The original proceedings before the IPD would also be additionally governed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the provisions of the CPC as applicable to commercial disputes, and the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The office order also stated that the appeal filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 will be registered as RFA, until the Rules are not framed.

As per the office order dated 07 July 2021, the IPD of Delhi High Court would deal with the following matters:

  • All original proceedings and appellate proceedings including Writ Petitions (Civil), Civil Misc. (Mains), RFA, FAO, etc., relating to IPR disputes, except matters that are to be dealt with by a Division Bench.
  • All fresh filings in the various IPR categories would also be dealt with by the IPD.
  • IPR suits, revocation applications, cancellation applications, other original proceedings, appeals from the office of Registrar of Trade Marks, Controller of Patents, Copyright Registrar, and all other proceedings which were hitherto maintainable before the IPAB, under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; Copyright Act, 1957; Patents Act, 1970; Designs Act, 2000; Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999; Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 and Semiconductor Act 2000.

The Roster of Sitting of the Hon’ble Judges of Delhi High Court stood amended with effect from 08 July 2021 with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narulabeen nominated to function as ‘IP Division’.

If we talk about the reason for the abolishment of IPAB, we preferably get two reasons, as mentioned in The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021. The first one is the delay in the justice delivery, and the second one is the considerable expense to the exchequer. With regards to the justice delivery, it must be noted that for a long period, there was no such appointment of chairman and members at the IPAB. Due to this, IPAB had to remain non-functional most of the time in the last three years (2018-2020). As per the data published by IPAB, despite the insufficient staff, IPAB did dispose of 181 cases in 2019 and 275 cases in 2020 making the average disposal rate 26.7 cases per month. Interestingly, the sanctioned strength of judges at DHC is 45 permanent Judges with 15 additional Judges but currently works with 31 Judges. The data from the National Judicial Data Grid shows the total pendency of civil cases at the DHC to be 72852.

Whether or not the decision to create the IPD is the right way forward for IP holders would depend on several aspects including but not limited to the speed at which the appeals/petitions would be disposed of by the IPD, and the number of Hon. Judges assigned to the Department. Also, it is only an initiative by the DHC for the moment, and we’ll need to wait and watch as to how quickly the other High Courts adopt the same/similar architecture/practice, as this IPD would only entertain pending IPAB matters from the Delhi jurisdiction (along with new matters/appeals arising from the jurisdiction).

It is still believed by practitioners that while IPAB was slow and non-functional for a long time when it was functional/working/active, the speed of issuing orders and taking up of matters was consistent, and at the same time ensured that the overall cost for the IP Owners/stakeholders was relatively more affordable because of a restricted number of hearings per matter. However, the overall cost of filing/processing an appeal/cancellation/revocation petition at the IPD is expected to be relatively higher and would require more hearings for the matter to be disposed of, thereby further slowing down the overall time taken to logically conclude the matter. We hope nevertheless that the initiative turns out to be a boon for effecting stronger rights for IP Holders.

Author: Saransh Chaturvedi an associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys (K&K), in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

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