https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198691 Orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board were treated as amenable to writ scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 because the Board was a statutory tribunal under the Trade Marks Act, not one created under Articles 323-A or 323-B. Section 124 was read as a procedural provision governing stay of infringement suits, not as a precondition to rectification, so prior leave of the civil court was unnecessary. In assignment and user disputes, a misdescription of the assignor did not by itself invalidate the transfer, but an independent claim of concurrent user failed on the pleadings and admissions. Rectification for non-user also failed for vagueness, and the renewal claim failed as time-barred; the appellate direction to amend a concluded application was beyond jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:51:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198691 Orders of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board were treated as amenable to writ scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 because the Board was a statutory tribunal under the Trade Marks Act, not one created under Articles 323-A or 323-B. Section 124 was read as a procedural provision governing stay of infringement suits, not as a precondition to rectification, so prior leave of the civil court was unnecessary. In assignment and user disputes, a misdescription of the assignor did not by itself invalidate the transfer, but an independent claim of concurrent user failed on the pleadings and admissions. Rectification for non-user also failed for vagueness, and the renewal claim failed as time-barred; the appellate direction to amend a concluded application was beyond jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198691