Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Shift from State’s Exclusivity to Respecting Party Autonomy: Conceptualising IP Arbitration in India


Affiliations
1 Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal — 721 302, India., India
 

The consumer-based and technology-driven economy has triggered competitiveness amongst companies. In the ever-evolving market space, the companies have recognised the significance of generating intangible assets such as trademarks, patents, and trade secrets to remain competitive. Due to globalisation, international business transactions with respect to these intangible assets have led to an increase in intellectual property disputes. Moreover, due to IP's complex nature, the risks involved in IP litigation can be burdensome in cross-border IP disputes coupled with the Court’s cumbersome procedure. Given that the stakeholders prefer out-of-court dispute resolution systems like arbitration to resolve their commercial disputes, arbitrating IP disputes is slowly gaining traction. Even though India’s courts have expressed their leaning towards arbitratingIP disputes, the same has become practically impossible due to various impediments in the existing mechanism. This article surveys the current IP arbitration regime and uncovers the existing impediments and loopholes in IP arbitration. Further, the article explores the possibility of liberalising the IP arbitration regime by taking cues from jurisdictions across the globe.

Keywords

Intellectual Property, Rights in Rem, Rights in Personam, IP Disputes, Dispute Resolution, Arbitration.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • National Judicial Data Grid (District and Taluka Courts of India),https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/?p=main/pend_dash board (accessed on 30 April 2021).

  • National Judicial Data Grid (High Courts of India), https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboar d (accessed on 30 April 2021).

  • Sinha R, Examining Pendency of Cases in the Judiciary(PRS Legislative Research, 8 August 2019, https://www.prsindia. org/theprsblog/examining-pendency-cases-judiciary(accessed on 8 March 2021).

  • Mahadik D, Analysis of Causes for Pendency in High Courts and Subordinate Courts in Maharashtra(Department of Justice, January 2018) https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/ files/ASCI Final Report Page641 to 822.pdf,(accessed on 15 March 2021).

  • Justice DY Chandrachud, Mediation – Realizing the Potential and Designing Implementation Strategies, https://lawcomm-issionofindia.nic.in/adr_conf/chandrachud3.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2021).

  • ICOMM Tele Ltd. vPunjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board, AIR 2019 SC 2682.

  • Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl, AIR 2020 SC 1807.

  • Glencore International AG vIndian Potash Limited, 2019 (5) ArbLR 1 (Delhi).

  • The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016).

  • PRS India, The New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Bill, 2019(July 2019) https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/new-delhi-international-arbitration-centre-bill-2019 (accessed on 23 October 2020).

  • Boog C &Menz J, Arbitrating IP Disputes: The 2014 WIPO Arbitration Rules,Journal of Arbitration Studies,24 (2014) 105.

  • International Chamber of Commerce, Adjudicating Intellectual Property Disputes: An ICC Report on Specialised IP Jurisdictions Worldwide,2016.

  • WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center,World Intellectual Property Organization, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/ background.html (accessed on 8 March 2021).

  • WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Options for Intellectual Property and Technology Cases Pending before National Courts(World Intellectual Property Organization) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/clauses/national_court.html (accessed on 8 March 2021).

  • Shree Vardhman Rice and Gen Mills vAmar Singh Chawalwala, (2009) 10 SCC 257.

  • Bajaj Auto Limited vTVS Motor Company Limited, (2009) 9 SCC 797.

  • Smit H, The future of international commercial arbitration: A single transnational institution, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 25 (1) (1986) 9-34.

  • Price Waterhouse Coopers and Queen Mary University of London School of International Arbitration, 2013 International Arbitration Survey: Corporate Choices in International Arbitration Industry Perspectives,2013.

  • Lee JY, Identifying effective dispute resolution mechanisms for intellectual property disputes in the international context, Journal of Arbitration Studies,25 (2015), 155, 167.

  • Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. vSBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532.

  • Vidya Drolia and Ors. Durga Trading Corporation, 2020 (12) ADJ 359.

  • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato. stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/intellectual-property/ (acessed on 21 April 2021).

  • Rab A, Defining the contours of the Public Policy exception - A new test for arbitrability in India, Indian Journal of Arbitration Law,7 (2019) 161.

  • Eros International Media Limited vTelemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2016(6) ArbLR 121 (Bom), para. 16.

  • Kingfisher Airlines LimitedvPrithviMalhotra2013 (1) ABR 255.

  • The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996), Section 34.

  • HDFC Bank Ltd v Satpal Singh Bakshi, (2013) ILR 1 Delhi 583.

  • Eros International Media Ltd. v Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd, 2016 (6) ArbLR 121 (Bom).

  • Indian Performers Right Society Limited vEntertainment Network Ltd., MANU/MH/1597/2016.

  • Ministry of Law and Justice, Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, (4 April 2021), https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/Pdf/ Tribunals_Reforms__Rationalisation_And_Conditions_Of_Se rvice__Ordinance__2021.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2021).

  • Justice Prabha Sridevan, Report of the Chairman, Intellectual Property Appellate Board,(2011) https://www.spicyip.com/ docs/CCF09212011_00001.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2021).

  • Reddy P & Dhawan P, The Case for Shutting Down the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)(SpicyIP, 15 April 2020), https://spicyip.com/2020/04/the-case-for-shutting-down-the-intellectual-property-appellate-board-ipab.html (accessed on 8 May 2021).

  • Mundipharma AG v Wockhardt Ltd., (1991) ILR1 Delhi 606.

  • Ministry of Sound International Ltd. vIndus Renaissance Partners Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2009 (1) ARBLR 566 (Delhi).

  • Notice of Motion (L) No. 2097 of 2014 in Suit No. 673 of 2014, Bombay High Court decided on 21st November 2014.

  • Impact Metals Ltd vMSR India Ltd, AIR 2017 AP 12.

  • M/s MSR India Limited v M/s Impact Metals Limited, MANU/SCOR/23906/2018.

  • Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v Lectro E-Mobility Private Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1058.

  • Lifestyle Equities CV v QD Seatoman Designs (P) Ltd, 2018 (1) CTC 450; Eros International Media Limited v Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd, 2016 (6) ArbLR 121 (Bom). A. Ayyasamy vA. Paramasivam, AIR 2016 SC 4675.

  • Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v Jayesh H. Pandya, (2003) 5 SCC 531.

  • Briner R, The Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes with Particular Emphasis on the Situation in Switzerland (Worldwide Forum on the Arbitration of Intellectual Property Disputes, 3 March 1994) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/events/ conferences/1994/briner.html (accessed on 31 August 2020).

  • Grantham W, The arbitrability of international intellectual property disputes,Berkeley Journal of International Law,14 (1996) 173, 186.

  • Beckman Instruments, Inc. vTechnical Develop, 588 F.2d 834 (7th Cir. 1978); Zip Manufacturing Co. vPep Manufacturing Co., 44 F.2d 184 (D. Del. 1930).

  • Sherkv Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S. 506(1974).

  • Kamakazi Music Corp. v Robbins Music Corp522 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

  • Saturday Evening Post Co. v Rumbleseat Press Inc.,816 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1987).

  • McMahan Sec. Co. v Forum Capital Markets, 35 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 1994); FolkwaysMusic Publishers, Inc. vWeiss, 989 F.2d 108 (2nd Cir. 1993).

  • Circuit City Stores. Inc. v Adams.532 U.S, 105 (2001) (Allowed to arbitrate a labour law dispute); Mitsubishi v Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (anti-trust law); Rodriguez de Quijas vShearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477(1989) (Securities law).

  • Patent Law Amendments of 1984,https://www.congress.gov/ 98/statute/STATUTE-98/STATUTE-98-Pg3383.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2021).

  • Rhone-Poulenc Specialities Chimiques v SCM Corp.,769 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

  • Re Medical Engineering Corporation, 976 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir, 1992).

  • Simms D P, Arbitrability of intellectual property disputes in Germany,Arbitration International,15 (1999) 193.

  • Smith M A etal.,Arbitration of patent infringement and validity issues worldwide,Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,19(2006) 299.

  • Pramod S, Hong Kong, The Asia-Pacific Arbitration Review 2019(Global Arbitration Review),https://globalarbitration-review.com/insight/the-asia-pacific-arbitration-review-2019/1175881/hong-kong#endnote-010 (accessed on 1 September 2020).

  • Dimsey M, Serena Lim & Monique Woo, 2018 Spells a New Beginning for IP Arbitration in Hong Kong(Engage, Hogan Lovells, 22 December 2107) https://www.engage. hoganlovells.com/knowledgeservices/news/2018-spells-a-new-beginning-for-ip-arbitration-in-hong-kong (accessed on 21 April 2021).

  • Department of Justice, Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 (Amendment Ordinance)http://www.gld.gov.hk/ egazette/pdf/20172125/es1201721255.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).

  • Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, Section 103C & Section 103I.

  • Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, Section 103E.

  • K.V. George vSecretary to Govt., Water and Power Department, Trivandrum,AIR 1990 SC 53.


Abstract Views: 118

PDF Views: 81




  • A Shift from State’s Exclusivity to Respecting Party Autonomy: Conceptualising IP Arbitration in India

Abstract Views: 118  |  PDF Views: 81

Authors

Thendralarasu S
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal — 721 302, India., India

Abstract


The consumer-based and technology-driven economy has triggered competitiveness amongst companies. In the ever-evolving market space, the companies have recognised the significance of generating intangible assets such as trademarks, patents, and trade secrets to remain competitive. Due to globalisation, international business transactions with respect to these intangible assets have led to an increase in intellectual property disputes. Moreover, due to IP's complex nature, the risks involved in IP litigation can be burdensome in cross-border IP disputes coupled with the Court’s cumbersome procedure. Given that the stakeholders prefer out-of-court dispute resolution systems like arbitration to resolve their commercial disputes, arbitrating IP disputes is slowly gaining traction. Even though India’s courts have expressed their leaning towards arbitratingIP disputes, the same has become practically impossible due to various impediments in the existing mechanism. This article surveys the current IP arbitration regime and uncovers the existing impediments and loopholes in IP arbitration. Further, the article explores the possibility of liberalising the IP arbitration regime by taking cues from jurisdictions across the globe.

Keywords


Intellectual Property, Rights in Rem, Rights in Personam, IP Disputes, Dispute Resolution, Arbitration.

References