Abstract
ABSTRACT Arbitrability in the context of IPR disputes has gained popularity worldwide. In India, there is no statutory provision that mandates the adoption of ADR when it comes to IPR disputes. The lack of any legislative insight thus stands as an impediment to efficient dispute resolution. The judiciary has also not taken a consistent stand in this regard. As a result, the law on this issue is a scattered version of what it could be. To improve the business environment and IPR protection, it is important to reform the law, keeping in mind the developments that are taking place in jurisdictions across the world. This paper studies the jurisprudence that has developed in India. It analyses the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Booz Allen and Hamilton v SBI Home Finance, its inconsistent application by High Courts, and concludes that there exists scope for codification and uniformity.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
