The Delhi High Court IP Division (the Intellectual Property Division, or IPD) was created in India by an Office Order dated 7 July 2021. It brings intellectual property suits, appeals and the revocation and cancellation cases once heard by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) into a single division, after an Ordinance abolished the IPAB.
This note covers the Delhi High Court and relies on the court’s own Office Order and press release. It does not cover other High Courts, in which, according to the press release, the Ordinance also vested the power to deal with former IPAB matters.
Written as at 14 July 2021. Later developments are not covered.
| Quick answer: |
| From 7 July 2021, IP suits, appeals and former IPAB matters at the Delhi High Court go to one division, except matters that are to be dealt with by a Division Bench. Per the Office Order, its own rules were still being framed and its benches were to be notified, so filings follow the order’s case labels and court fee “for the time being”. |
What the Intellectual Property Division Is
The Intellectual Property Division is a division of the Delhi High Court set up on the Chief Justice’s direction by an Office Order dated 7 July 2021. It brings IP disputes, including matters moved over from the IPAB, under one roof, and the order took effect immediately.
The Chief Justice, Justice D.N. Patel, constituted a committee of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Sanjeev Narula to review how the court should handle its large volume of IP cases. On that committee’s recommendations, the Chief Justice directed the Division’s creation. The court’s press release gives the reason as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions on matters relating to the same trade marks, patents or designs.
Why the Court Acted After the IPAB Was Abolished
The court acted after the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, which the press release says was notified on 4 April 2021. By the press release’s account, the Ordinance abolished the Boards and Appellate Tribunals under several statutes, including the IPAB, and vested their pending and fresh matters in the High Courts.
Before its abolition, the IPAB heard appeals from the IP offices and matters such as revocation of trade marks and patents. The press release says the IPAB had a substantial number of pending matters and that, on information received from the IPAB, approximately 3,000 cases are now to be transferred to the Delhi High Court.
The High Court was already hearing infringement suits, writ petitions and appeals from the Commercial Courts in IP matters. The Division takes in that existing docket and the IPAB work together.
What the Delhi High Court IP Division Will Hear
The Office Order assigns the Division all original and appellate proceedings relating to IP disputes, except matters to be dealt with by a Division Bench. It also assigns all fresh IP filings and the proceedings that were earlier maintainable before the IPAB under these statutes:
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Copyright Act, 1957
- Patents Act, 1970
- Designs Act, 2000
- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
- Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
- the “Semi conductor Act 2000”, as the order itself labels it
Other former tribunal matters are routed differently. The order says appeals under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 are to be registered as RFA until rules are framed, and cases under the Customs Act, 1962, the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 are registered as writ petitions (civil). These are not IPD categories.
In trade mark matters, the court’s annexure shows that a person seeking removal of a mark for non-use, or cancellation of a registration, can approach either the Registrar of Trade Marks or the High Court (Sections 47 and 57). An application to rectify the register questioning the validity of a registration is described as filed directly in the High Court and not before the Registrar (Section 125). Appeals against the Registrar’s orders go to the High Court. The annexure does not say which High Court hears matters from Registry offices outside Delhi. For the difference between these post-registration remedies and opposition, see how opposition and rectification differ.
For patents, the annexure lists revocation petitions, rectification of the register, and appeals from orders of the Controller or the Central Government. Our note on how patent revocation works in India explains the grounds and the process, and our patent examination and opposition work covers the proceedings that precede an appeal. Copyright statutory licence applications for broadcasting are likewise filed in the High Court and not before the Registrar, and geographical indication rectification, like trade marks, is open before the Registrar or the High Court.
How Cases Are Named and What Is Paid
The annexure to the Office Order gives each listed trade mark, copyright, patent, geographical indication and plant variety proceeding a case label. A non-use removal petition is labelled C.O. (Comm. IPD-TM) and carries a court fee of Rs 525 “for the time being”; the other IP rows point back to that fee.
| Subject | Original proceeding | Appeal |
| Trade marks | C.O. (Comm. IPD-TM) | C.A. (Comm. IPD-TM) |
| Copyright | C.O. (Comm. IPD-CR) | C.A. (Comm. IPD-CR) |
| Patents | C.O. (Comm. IPD-PAT) | C.A. (Comm. IPD-PAT) |
| Geographical indications | C.O. (Comm. IPD-GI) | C.A. (Comm. IPD-GI) |
| Plant varieties | Not listed | C.A. (Comm. IPD-PV) |
C.O. means civil original and C.A. means civil appeal. Case labels and fee are as per the Office Order of 7 July 2021, verified as of July 2021. The annexure has no row for the Designs Act or the “Semi conductor Act 2000”, although the order names both, and it lists no label or fee for infringement suits. The Rs 525 figure is a court fee only, not the total cost of a proceeding.
What Is Still Unsettled
On the Office Order and press release, three points were open: the IPD rules were being framed, benches were to be notified from time to time, and about 3,000 former IPAB cases were “now to be transferred”. The sources say nothing more on a party’s pending IPAB matter.
Original proceedings in the Division are additionally governed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to commercial disputes, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The annexure also records the Cinematograph appeal jurisdiction as “to be notified”. The press release adds that exclusive IPD benches are likely. It also says a committee is framing the Delhi High Court Patent Rules for patent disputes, and that the first draft was notified for stakeholders’ comments, which have been received. Our earlier note on an earlier draft of the Delhi High Court patent suit rules covers a 2020 draft; the press release does not say which draft it means.
Before filing, check the Delhi High Court’s notices for the current bench, label and fee. Infringement suits form part of the court’s existing IP docket, and trademark enforcement support covers that route.
This article explains the position in India as at July 2021 and is for general information only. It is not legal advice. Laws, fees, and procedures change; verify the current position before you act. For advice on your specific matter, consult a qualified IP professional.
Sources
- Office Order dated 7 July 2021, Intellectual Property Division, with Annexure A, High Court of Delhi, Original Side.
- Press Release, Creation of Intellectual Property Division in the Delhi High Court, High Court of Delhi (copy hosted by indiaip.com).