An update on the PILs against the IPAB and the Copyright Board


As we had reported earlier, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had ordered the State Government and the Central Government to co-operate in relocating the IPAB to a new office with adequate space. The State Government came back with a proposal to relocate the IPAB at the TIDEL Park Building which had the required space. The proposed rent was pegged at about Rs. 15 lakhs per month. Apparently the Central Government found this to be too expensive and everything is back to square one.

It’s disappointing to see things moving so slowly. The Central Government just does not seem to understand the matters at issue. For example, a letter from the DIPP lays out the space requirements of the IPAB by comparing it with the norms for the Central Administrative Tribunal and not the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) which in reality are the only norms that are of some relevance. What’s the use of comparing it to the CAT? How does that make any sense?


As for the main question of constitutionality of the IPAB and Copyright Board, we have made zero progress. Some of the important pleadings and correspondence regarding the PIL, are available below:

(ii) The complete report filed by Justice Sridevan with the IPAB;
(iii) Letter sent to the ASG from the DIPP;
(iv) Letter sent to the DIPP to the IPAB; Annexure 1; Annexure 2 and Annexure 3;
(v) Letter from CPWD to the ASG;
(vi) Fair Rent Certificate.

Tags:

Prashant Reddy

T. Prashant Reddy graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a B.A.LLB (Hons.) degree in 2008. He later graduated with a LLM degree (Law, Science & Technology) from the Stanford Law School in 2013. Prashant has worked with law firms in Delhi and in academia in India and Singapore. He is also co-author of the book Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas (OUP).

3 comments.

  1. IPvocal

    Firstly you should have not filed this writ in TN rather you should have filed in DHC or SC as you have raised very important questions regarding formation of IPAB.

    I have seen your post as well as seen your petition and I feel you have got trapped in to situation created by UOI of shifting IPAB. Please do not get involved in shifting of IPAB rather get effective IPAB with minimal intervention of GOI.

    Do not get in entrapped in to their situations, rather keep you focus on overhauling of IPAB as you have raised pertinent questions of about induction of technical members and on promotion becoming vice-chairman so on without legal back ground.

    Another major aspect, in trademark one has to be JR with 5 years experience as JR but for patents one has to be deputy controller equivalent to the rank of deputy registrar so vast difference between two posts.

    Firstly Registrar of trademark or its subordinate officers work as tribunal but in case patents the patents do not work as tribunal. so there is vast difference between two but for appointment as member technical both are equal.

    I have seen reply of DIPP under secretary, who had cleverly tried to dodge you from getting benefit of NCLT judgment. so please work hard otherwise they will pin you down legally and will wash out your writ without any trace

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I have seen TIDEL park at Chennai and find no merit (except the argument that it has requisite ‘space’).

    TIDEL park is a ‘posh’ IT park, and outside the city for most lawyers. Such IT parks are known to be very expensive as they have high maintainence.

    A fresh look is required for a more cost effective solution… and if need be, possibly even considering moving the IPAB out of Chennai – after all the only reason this administrative Office IPAB is here is because the earlier minister was from Chennai.

    How about looking at level II metro options like Cochin or Ahmedabad… They are well connected by Air/ rail for most practitioners and have excellent facilities.

    I am not advocating the 4 metros since they would shoot above TIDEL park in rent.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    I think Rs15 Lakh a month should not be a problem so long as Justice Sridevan is there keeping in view that the IPAB has now started collecting amounts by imposing costs ranging from Rs10000/- to Rs25000/-. The amount could even be increased. I understand that it (collecting costs for IPAB) would continue even after Justice Sridevan attains super annuation from IPAB.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.