|
World
Intellectual Property - IP Laws - India
Setting
the right trend in IP adjudication:
In the Paul
Manufacturing Co. case, the petitioner prayed before the High Court
to issue a writ of certiorary or a direction under the Article 226
of the Indian constitution to quash the trade mark registration
No. 1280913 granted under the Trade Marks Act 1999 by the Registrar
of Trade Marks. Though such petitions should have been filed
before the Registrar of Trade Marks for the decision to be taken
by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, but the petitioner
directly approached the High Court since the IPAB was dysfunctional,
because of delay in appointing a technical member on the Board
for several months, and under Artile 226 of the Indian constitution,
High Court was competent to issue a certiorary to quash the order
of the RTM.
This raises
a fundamental issue in relation to the jurisdiction of various tribunals,
since the law laid down by the Supreme Court is that the high courts
are only to invoke the writ jurisdiction on grounds of patent legality
or miscarriage of justice. However, the government later told
the court that the appointment of the technical member at the IPAB
had since been made.
The bare
facts of this case do not attract serious attention, but this shows
the judiciary's resolve to develop an efficient IP system in India.
For any
queries relating to our services and costs, please feel free to
contact us at info@iprfirm.com.
IPR
FIRM.COM - Online IPR Law Firm, India – Trade Marks, Copyright Registration,
Delhi, India
| | |
(c) IPR Firm, 2007.
| 
