IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) No.2251/2011
ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEY?S
ASSOCIATION (INDIAN GROUP)?
..Petitioner
Through:
Mrs. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ujjwala Jeremiah,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Through:

Respondent
Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, Adv.

CORAM:HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
04.03.2015.
1.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed seeking
directions for ensuring smooth and efficient functioning of the Intellectual Property
Appellate Board (IPAB), including by ensuring, timely6 appointment of Chairman and
Technical Member, Appointment of such other members to enable formation of adequate
benches, to ensure the regular and continuous hearings before IPAB and for constitution
of separate benches in each of the cities where Intellectual Property Offices are located.
2.
The petition was entertained and directions issued from time to time including for
making available a permanent situs for sittings of the IPAB at Delhi and for furnishing of
the said premises and for appointment of staff of IPAB at Delhi. We are happy to note
that the respondent Union of India (UOI) has complied with the said directions in right
earnest.
3.
The senior counsel for the petitioner also today expresses satisfaction in this
respect. She has however drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the
Government of India in W.P.(C) No.4350/2002 earlier filed by Intellectual property
Attorney?s Association and in which it was stated that once the IPAB is operative, the
requirement of more benches will be looked into and appropriate action taken. The
senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that now that IPAB has its own premises
at Delhi and even otherwise since now IPAB is fully operational, it is time for the
Government of India to set up a permanent bench of the IPAB at Delhi. It is informed
that IPAB has its permanent situs at Chennai and holds hearings in Calcutta, Delhi,

Ahmedabad and Mumbai through Circuit Benches. Attention is invited to the table on
record, of this petition, of trade marks and patent cases filed / disposed of by IPA for the
year 2011-12 and on the basis thereof it is contended that the number of cases filed in
Delhi far exceeds the number of cases filed in IPAB at any other location. It is further
shown from the said table that owing to Delhi having a Circuit Bench, the number of
cases disposed of at Delhi jurisdiction is less than the number of cases disposed of at
Chennai, even though the filing here is more. The senior counsel for the petitioner has
also handed over in Court today another table of cases for the year 2014 and which also
shows a similar position qua number of cases filed, though we may observe that in the
year 2014, inspite of Delhi having only a Circuit Bench, the cases disposed of at Delhi
jurisdiction are slightly more than the cases disposed of at Chennai jurisdiction, at least in
the category of trade mark cases. However the disposal at Delhi of patent cases remains
below the disposal figure of Chennai inspite of the filing of the patent cases in Delhi
being more than at Channai. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that thus the only
relief surviving in this petition is a direction for setting up of a permanent bench of IPAB
at Delhi.
4.
We are however of the opinion that it would not be proper for us to issue such a
direction. Setting up of a permanent bench of IPAB shall have manifold ramifications
and all of which are not before us. It is for the Government of India to take a decision in
this regard and which it had promised as aforesaid to take. Time has now come to take
the said decision. We need only remind the Government that quick disposal of litigations
/ cases in Courts has been one of the visions of the present Government as well. We
expect that the Government, on an analysis of the need for a permanent bench and if
satisfied, would take appropriate decision thereon.
5.
We accordingly dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent
Government of India to within three months of today take a reasoned decision on the
need for having a permanent bench of IPAB at Delhi. Needless to state that if decision
for such a bench is taken, the requisite steps in aid thereof be also taken thereafter,
without any delay.

CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MARCH 04, 2015.