I am compelled to draft a reply to Prashant’s response to my post (which in turn was a response to the initial post by him and Prannv arguing for the shutdown of IPAB). The bulk of my ire is against the allegation that I have written my last post only because I make a living off the IPAB. I must state that the courts, especially the High Courts are substantially the means of my daily subsistence. Therefore, my views against…

Last week, Arun responded to my piece to shut down the IPAB and shift back its functions to the High Courts. I am not surprised – Arun’s firm makes a healthy living by filing matters before the IPAB. I have been speaking to several other people on this issue including former Chairperson of the IPAB, Justice Prabha Sridevan who was kind enough to point me to an opinion piece she wrote many years ago in the Hindu calling for the…

I had read Prashant and Prannv’s post, and wanted to explain why scuttling the IPAB is not the fix for bureaucratic red-tapism, of which the IPAB has been a rather targeted victim. Needless to state there have been intermittent delays in appointing chairpersons and members to the IPAB. This was especially manifested in the appointment of the last two chairpersons. The cause of this delay cannot obviously be thrust on the Tribunal itself, which is subject to the vagaries of the…

(This post has been co-authored with Prannv Dhawan, 3rd year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at  NLSIU, Bangalore) This year marks the 17th year of existence of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and in this post, we are going to lay down a case for shutting down the IPAB and transferring its powers and case-load back to High Courts. Originally setup under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to hear appeals against the trade mark registry, as well as rectification petitions…