Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v. Deputy Controller Of Patents and Designs (Hearing Officer) and Anr

When a specialized tribunal that has been the battleground for intellectual property disputes for decades is suddenly dissolved, every pending case is left hanging in legal limbo. The case of Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd versus the Deputy Controller is a snapshot of this exact moment in India's IP history — a dispute caught mid-flight as the system beneath it changed entirely. For founders and IP professionals, this case is a reminder that the forum where you fight your battles can shift overnight, and preparation for that shift matters.

Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, found itself in a trademark dispute with the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The matter had been pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had historically served as the dedicated appellate forum for IP matters in India. However, with the enactment of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, the IPAB was dissolved, and its pending caseload had to be redistributed. As a result, Maruishi's case was transferred to the Calcutta High Court, where it landed on 31 January 2023.

At this stage, the legal friction was less about the substantive trademark arguments and more about the procedural transition. The petitioner, Maruishi Pharmaceutical, had been pursuing its matter through the IPAB framework, while the respondent — the Deputy Controller — represented the patent and design authorities. The central question before the court was not the merits of the trademark dispute itself, but rather how to seamlessly continue proceedings that had been abruptly uprooted from their original forum. The court had to determine the appropriate procedural pathway to ensure the petitioner's right to be heard was preserved during this institutional handover.

On 31 January 2023, the Calcutta High Court addressed the procedural status of the transferred matter. Recognizing that the case required proper handling within the new forum, the court directed the Commercial Appellate Division to issue notices to the concerned parties and to file a report before the matter could be formally listed. The court scheduled the next hearing for March 2023, ensuring that the transition from the IPAB to the High Court would not prejudice either party's position. As of the latest update, the matter remains pending, awaiting the next stage of proceedings in its new judicial home.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, this case underscores a critical lesson: the institutional landscape of IP litigation is not static. The dissolution of the IPAB under the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021 means that IP disputes are now being channeled through High Courts and their Commercial Divisions, which may follow different procedural timelines and practices. Businesses with pending or anticipated IP disputes should proactively understand which forum will hear their case, prepare for potentially longer timelines during transitional periods, and engage counsel familiar with the new procedural architecture to avoid being caught off-guard by systemic shifts in the dispute resolution framework.