Introduction
In the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in India, the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on April 4, 2021, marked a significant shift in the adjudication of IP disputes, transferring such matters to the High Courts. This transition raised intricate questions about procedural norms, particularly regarding the appropriate bench composition for hearing challenges to pre-abolition IPAB orders.
The case of Ayur United Care LLP versus Union of India & Anr., along with several connected writ petitions, exemplifies this transitional complexity. Decided by the High Court of Delhi, the judgment delves into whether writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contesting IPAB decisions on trademark rectifications, should be adjudicated by a Single Judge or a Division Bench.
At its core, the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021, and the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018, highlighting tensions between statutory mandates, judicial efficiency, and historical appellate structures. The petitioners, primarily entities holding or challenging the trademark “Ayur,” faced rectification orders from the IPAB that favored the second respondents, prompting these writs.
Factual Background
The controversy stems from disputes over the trademark “Ayur,” a term associated with traditional Indian wellness and Ayurvedic products. The petitioners, including Ayur United Care LLP, M H Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and Three N-Products Pvt. Ltd., held registrations for this mark, which they claimed as proprietary for their goods and services.
The second respondents, appearing in various petitions, filed rectification applications before the IPAB, arguing that “Ayur” was generic or descriptive and thus not eligible for exclusive registration. On June 28, 2013, the IPAB allowed these rectification petitions, effectively challenging or revoking the petitioners’ registrations in favor of the applicants.
Aggrieved by this outcome, the petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to file writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi, seeking to set aside the IPAB’s orders. These petitions were lodged prior to the IPAB’s abolition but gained renewed urgency after April 4, 2021, when the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, dissolved the IPAB and transferred its pending matters to the High Courts.
The factual matrix is compounded by multiple interconnected petitions, each involving similar trademark disputes but with varying parties. While Ayur United Care LLP appeared as a common petitioner in several cases, entities such as Three N-Products Pvt. Ltd. featured in others. Although the substantive IP issue—whether “Ayur” qualifies as a distinctive trademark or falls within the public domain—remains important, the judgment primarily addresses a preliminary threshold question.
- Whether challenges to IPAB rectification orders can be heard by a Single Judge
- Or whether such matters mandatorily require adjudication by a Division Bench
Procedural Background
The procedural journey began with the filing of rectification petitions against the “Ayur” trademark registrations before the IPAB. This culminated in the IPAB’s order dated June 28, 2013, allowing rectification in favor of the applicants.
Subsequently, the aggrieved registrants approached the High Court of Delhi by filing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. These petitions were initially listed and proceeded in the ordinary course.
A significant procedural shift occurred with the abolition of the IPAB on April 4, 2021, under the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, later enacted as the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. As a result:
- All IPAB-related appeals and proceedings were transferred to the jurisdictional High Courts
- The Delhi High Court operationalized its Intellectual Property Division (IPD)
- The pending writ petitions were re-designated as W.P.(C)-IPD series matters
During the course of hearings before the IPD, the respondents raised a serious preliminary objection. They contended that writ petitions challenging quasi-appellate IPAB orders must be heard by a Division Bench, rather than by a Single Judge. This objection was premised on rules governing bench composition, particularly in matters involving statutory interpretation and the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the IPD Rules, 2021, expressly contemplate adjudication of intellectual property disputes by a Single Judge, except where specific exceptions apply. According to them, the present writ petitions squarely fell within the Single Judge’s jurisdiction under the IPD framework.
Reasoning And Decision Of Court
The court’s reasoning commences with a clear delineation of the rival submissions, acknowledging the petitioners’ insistence on Single Judge jurisdiction under the IPD Rules and the respondents’ push for Division Bench hearing based on the Delhi High Court Rules and the nature of the writs.
Statutory Framework Considered By The Court
- Rule 4’s general mandate for Single Judge adjudication in IPD
- Rule 2(l)’s inclusion of writs arising from IPR subjects except Division Bench matters
- The wide ambit of “matter” in Rule 2(i) encompassing trademarks
It noted that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act pertains to appeals from decrees, irrelevant here.
Harmonious Interpretation And Jurisdiction
Harmonizing the rules, the court rejected the rigid Division Bench requirement, holding that a writ petition challenging an IPAB trademark order constitutes an “IPR subject matter” to be heard by a Single Judge under IPD Rule 4, as it does not trigger DHC Rules’ Division Bench exceptions.
The decision underscores that post-abolition, such petitions are original proceedings before the IPD, not appeals, and thus fall within Single Judge domain for efficiency.
While appreciating alternative options, the court deemed them unnecessary, affirming its own jurisdiction as a Single Judge and directing the matters to proceed on merits, thereby resolving the preliminary objection in favor of Single Bench hearing.
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
The judgment settles a pivotal point of law concerning the jurisdictional framework post-IPAB abolition: writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 challenging pre-abolition IPAB orders on intellectual property matters, such as trademark rectifications, are to be adjudicated by a Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the High Court, unless they fall within explicit exceptions requiring Division Bench hearing under the Delhi High Court Rules, 2018, or Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Interpretation Of IPD Rules, 2021
This clarification arises from a harmonious interpretation of the IPD Rules, 2021— particularly Rules 4, 2(i), 2(j), and 2(l)—which define IP subject matters broadly to include patents, copyrights, trademarks, and related disputes, mandating Single Judge resolution for efficiency in the post-tribunal era.
Nature Of Transferred IPAB Petitions
The court elucidates that such petitions, though stemming from appellate-like IPAB proceedings, are treated as original IPD matters upon transfer, not invoking DHC Rules’ Division Bench mandates for cases involving statutory vires, personal liberty, or public interest litigation.
This ruling prevents procedural fragmentation, ensuring streamlined adjudication of legacy IPAB cases while respecting the legislative intent behind the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, to decongest tribunals and empower High Courts.
It also underscores that the term “matter” in IPD Rules encompasses IPAB orders, rejecting arguments for mandatory Division Bench listing based on the quasi-appellate nature of the challenge, and affirms that Single Judges possess inherent jurisdiction unless statutorily ousted.
Case Detail
| Case Title | Ayur United Care LLP Vs Union Of India & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date Of Order | 16 October 2023 |
| Case Number | W.P.(C)-IPD 61/2021 |
| Neutral Citation | 2023:DHC:7556 |
| Name Of Court | High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi |
| Name Of Hon’ble Judge | Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
