As reported by LiveLaw, and published by the Press Information Bureau on the 27th of July 2016, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry proposed a Plan Scheme to ‘Modernize and Strengthen’ the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai. This information was provided by the Minister of State (Independent Charge) in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nirmala Sitharaman by written reply in the Rajya Sabha.
The Scheme sanctions a total cost of Rs. 14.70 crores under the 12th Plan, and provides for the construction of a permanent building in Tondiarpet, Chennai, an upgrade of infrastructure facilities, and the creation of additional posts. As reported, 12 out of 30 sanctioned posts in the IPAB are currently vacant. Steps are being taken to fill the remaining posts, with the exception of the Library Information Officer post – which has now been abolished. It has been clarified that a proposal to fill up the posts of the Chairman and the Technical Member for Patents is under consideration. The posts of Deputy Registrar and Court Officer has been taken up with the Union Public Service Commission, and the vacancies of the posts of Private Secretary, Senior Hindi Translator, Stenographer Grade C, and two posts of Lower Division Clerks, are being advertised.
Further, the notification states that the posts of the Vice-Chairman and the Technical Member for Trademarks will be filled in view of the Madras High Court’s decision – Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India. To recap, (read Prof. Basheer’s posts on the decision here and here) relevant criteria set down by the High Court are:
- The Selection Panel must be predominantly judicial.
- Technical Members must have been in the post of Joint Registrar or above with the qualification of 12 years’ of practice at bar or 12 years’ experience in a State Judicial Service with a Degree in Law, along with other prescribed qualifications
- The Vice-Chairman must have been a Technical Member with the qualification of 12 years’ of judicial experience.
(Image taken from here)
DIPP had no time to think about long pending issues related to IP offices in India..Such as HR issues and Quality of Reports and Targets ..
why DIPP is only implementing few of Recommendation of IPR policy why not all if they are really want to change IPR system then they need to implement all the recommendation in IPR policy …