Prabha Sridevan, Chairman - (1.) TWO Larger Benches of the IPAB were constituted recently to decide two issues one relating to the IPAB's power to review its own order and the other relating to IPAB's power to grant interim orders pending final application. In both, we had to consider the importance of this Tribunal and the nature of its jurisdiction, power and authority. This order relates to the power to grant interim orders. The applicant in ORA. No. 7 of 2012 moved an Application for interim stay of the registration of the respondent's Trade Mark on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied upon various decisions of the Court earlier, wherein interim stay was granted. He also referred to Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. ( : AIR 1996 SC 2592) and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others ( : AIR 1981 SC 606) in support of his contention that every Tribunal should be considered to have such power ancillary or incidental as are necessary to do justice in a case where if prima facie case is established, stay must be granted. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed for granting stay on the ground that IPAB has no power to grant stay.
(3.) WE could have decided the matter as an issue that had arisen inter se parties in that particular case. But, whatever we decide, it would apply, not only to the proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 but also to proceedings under the Patent Act, 1970 and under Geographical Indications Act, or under any other Act, which is brought under the IPAB umbrella in the future. Therefore, we felt that it may not be fair to decide such an important question in the absence of Members of the Bar who practice in Patent Law or in Geographical Indications proceedings. Since there had been varying views of this Board, we thought that we should constitute a Larger Bench and we issued directions for constituting a larger Bench which was published in Website, where we invited Members of the Bar to appear as interveners. We had also observed that if no intervening application was filed, we would appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist us. But the response from the Bar has been enthusiastic. In fact, arguments were made over two days at New Delhi and again by a special request on one day at Chennai. We are extremely grateful to the Members of the Bar for this comprehensive and well researched assistance each one gave as amicus to help us to decide this purely legal issue. The following learned Advocates appeared before us: - Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Sushant Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Tiwari, Ms. Prathiba Singh, Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Amarjit Singh, Ms. Rajeswari, Mr. S. Majumdar, Mr. Peeyush Kalra, Mr. Anil Dutt, Mr. Ajay Sahani, Mr. U.S. Sharma, Mr. Shalien Bhatia, Mr. Sidharth Bambha, Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. Praveen Anand, Mr. M.S. Bharath and Mr. D. Solomon. Intervening Applications were filed by Subhatosh Majumdar @ Majumdar & Company for Shreedhar Milk Foods Ltd.,;