Nine years ago on September 15, 2003, the Government of India constituted the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to hear appeals from Trade Marks (TM) and Geographical Indications (GI). In April 2007, the Board was vested with powers to hear appeals from the Controller of Patents. Headquartered at Chennai, the Board additionally holds sittings at Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and Ahmedabad.
To get a real sense of IPAB’s performance thus far, Spicy IP filed an RTI application seeking information of number on Original Rectification Applications (ORA), Transferred Rectification Applications (TRA), Original Appeals (OA) and Transferred Appeals (TA) filed and disposed from 2007 till August 2012. Raw stats are as follows:
TRADE MARKS
|
YEAR
|
ORA
|
TRA
|
OA
|
TA
|
||||
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
|
|
2007
|
216
|
39
|
1
|
22
|
58
|
41
|
1
|
26
|
|
2008
|
292
|
63
|
1
|
3
|
101
|
38
|
1
|
19
|
|
2009
|
294
|
64
|
0
|
11
|
93
|
33
|
4
|
20
|
|
2010
|
271
|
63
|
0
|
8
|
58
|
58
|
1
|
13
|
|
2011
|
193
|
171
|
0
|
11
|
76
|
57
|
2
|
11
|
|
2012
|
285
|
127
|
0
|
8
|
44
|
78
|
1
|
9
|
PATENTS
|
YEAR
|
ORA
|
TRA
|
OA
|
TA
|
||||
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
|
|
2007
|
3
|
0
|
8
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
12
|
0
|
|
2008
|
10
|
0
|
19
|
0
|
8
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
|
2009
|
45
|
1
|
0
|
6
|
27
|
7
|
0
|
7
|
|
2010
|
21
|
14
|
0
|
9
|
32
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
2011
|
30
|
9
|
0
|
4
|
47
|
8
|
0
|
2
|
|
2012
|
43
|
13
|
0
|
4
|
64
|
11
|
0
|
5
|
The table below has combined stats on total trademarks and patents matters filed before the IPAB from 2007 till August, 2012.
|
YEAR
|
TRADE MARKS
|
PATENTS
|
TOTAL
|
|||
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
Filed
|
Disposed
|
|
|
2007
|
276
|
128
|
30
|
0
|
306
|
128
|
|
2008
|
395
|
120
|
39
|
0
|
434
|
120
|
|
2009
|
391
|
128
|
72
|
21
|
463
|
149
|
|
2010
|
330
|
142
|
54
|
25
|
384
|
167
|
|
2011
|
271
|
250
|
77
|
23
|
348
|
273
|
|
2012
|
330
|
222
|
107
|
33
|
437
|
255
|
Key Findings
As per the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) Annual Report of 2011-12, a total of 3039 cases have been filed and 1338 cases have been disposed-off by the Board as on December 31, 2012. In addition to this, two cases came in appeal under the G.I Act during this period. Combining the figures for this year, sourced from the RTI application, the total number of filed till August, 2012 are 3478. Total number of cases disposed stands at 1593.
One would notice a steady increase in the number of cases disposed-off, a welcome sign. This increase, however, is not proportionate to the number of cases filed each year before the Board, with 2011 being an exception to this trend.
IPAB 2011-12: NOTHING LIKE BEFORE
 |
| IPAB Logo |
Despite the heavy backlog, the performance of IPAB in the past 20 months has significantly improved. In the first eight months of this year itself, the Board has already cleared over 250 matters. Although the Board was understaffed for close to five months in 2011 due delay in appointment of members, total matters disposed were 273. This is way more than the average 140 matters disposed between 2007 and 2010. Nonetheless, the tribunal still faces a significant backlog with over 1900 matters awaiting disposal.
The last two years has seen a general improvement in its day-to-day functioning. For the first time in years, the dates for hearing for its circuit benches were announced well in advance. The Delhi and Mumbai Circuit Benches which used to operate from IP Offices have been moved to high courts in Delhi and Bombay. There have been instances in the past where the Board had to cancel meetings because of space crunch in IP Offices. Nonetheless, there is still a vast scope for improvement. The IPAB website needs a total revamp, to start with.
Justice Prabha Sridevan’s appointment as the Chairperson in April 2011 deserves much of credit for this improvement. Incidentally, Justice Sridevan also featured in Managing IP’s 50 most influential personalities in the IP world earlier this year.
It is nice to have the statistics. I am concerned with the quality of the judgments. The quality of the judgments of the IPAB are not up to the mark keeping in view that this is a specialized Tribunal. The quality of judgments ahs though improved after the taking over of the affairs by Justice Prabha Sridevan, yet to my mind the quality of the judgments are not as should have been, keeping in view that Justice Sridevan has been the judge of High Court.