JUDICIAL REVIEW AND OVERREACH IN IPR: A COMPRATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRADEMARK

AUTHOR – SATWIK ARYAN, STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, PATNA

BEST CITATION – SATWIK ARYAN, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND OVERREACH IN IPR: A COMPRATIVE ANALYSIS OF TRADEMARK, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (14) OF 2025, PG. 39-42, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The delicate balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint is a cornerstone of constitutional governance, particularly relevant in specialized and rapidly evolving fields like Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This paper examines the role of judicial review in trademark law, focusing specifically on instances where court interventions might be perceived as judicial overreach, essentially interfering with the legislative and executive domains of policymaking and administration.

The study employs a comparative doctrinal analysis, focusing on trademark jurisprudence in India and the United States, two jurisdictions with different approaches to the separation of powers and judicial interpretation. It traces landmark case law and statutory interpretations to highlight how the boundary between legitimate judicial interpretation of trademark statutes (e.g., in cases of deceptive similarity, dilution, or non-conventional marks) and judicial legislation is often blurred in practice. The paper argues that while judicial review is a vital mechanism to protect the fundamental rights of trademark holders and consumers, an expansive exercise of this power can lead to uncertainty and a lack of clear statutory guidelines, potentially eroding the predictability of IPR enforcement.

KEYWORDS

Judicial Review, Judicial Overreach, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Trademark Law, Comparative Analysis, India, United States, Judicial Activism, Separation of Powers.