Copyright jurisdiction under the amended statute survived despite absence of a technical member on the Appellate Board.

Amended section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 vested copyright jurisdiction in the Appellate Board constituted under sections 83 and 84 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, replacing the earlier Copyright Board scheme. The unamended Copyright Rules, 2013 could not override that statutory amendment, and any inconsistent references to a Copyright Board became ineffective. A temporary absence of a technical member (copyright) did not remove the Appellate Board's competence to hear copyright matters, because valid constitution under the parent statute was sufficient. The administrative refusal to list the copyright application on that ground was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be placed before the Board for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, as constituted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had jurisdiction to entertain matters under the Copyright Act, 1957 after the amendment substituting the Copyright Board with the Appellate Board, notwithstanding the absence of a technical member (copyright) and the unamended Copyright Rules, 2013.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended with effect from 26.05.2017, substituted the earlier scheme of a Copyright Board with the Appellate Board established under section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and vested in it the jurisdiction, powers and authority under the Copyright Act. The earlier rules framed under section 78 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to the extent they continued to speak of constitution of a Copyright Board, became inconsistent with the amended statute and served no purpose. The valid constitution of the Appellate Board under sections 83 and 84 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was sufficient to enable it to exercise copyright jurisdiction; the temporary absence of a technical member (copyright) did not oust that jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Appellate Board had jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner's copyright application, and the refusal to list the matter on the ground of absence of a technical member (copyright) was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned administrative order was set aside and the copyright application was directed to be placed before the Appellate Board for decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute expressly vests jurisdiction in a validly constituted appellate body under a successor framework, inconsistent subordinate rules cannot defeat that statutory jurisdiction, and a vacancy in a particular member category does not by itself negate the tribunal's competence to hear the matter.

---