‌‌Context & Objective: In industrial property law, the issuance of a registration certificate grants the holder exclusive rights. However, because of the potential for error by the registration authority in evaluating substantive conditions, such certificates cannot be presumed definitively valid. This raises a critical legal question: can a judicial authority, in the context of adjudicating infringement claims, independently evaluate the substantive validity of a registration certificate without a formal action for invalidation? In recent years, Iranian criminal courts have adopted a practice of assessing certificate validity through expert opinions during infringement proceedings, leading to rulings of non-prosecution when registration conditions were deemed unfulfilled. This judicial approach has garnered support from segments of Iranian legal scholarship. In contrast, the 2024 enactment of Article 133 in the Industrial Property Protection Act mandates that upon a defense challenging the certificate’s validity, courts must stay proceedings and refrain from direct evaluation of substantive validity. This article seeks to examine the extent to which this legislative development aligns with the fundamental nature of global registration systems, the core requirements of industrial property law, and the legal doctrine governing the stay of proceedings.
 ‌Method & Approach: The article employs a doctrinal research methodology to conduct a critical analysis of both judicial practice and the legislative position embedded in Article 133. It scrutinizes relevant statutory texts, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries to assess the theoretical and practical consistency of prior court practices with established legal principles.
 ‌Findings: The analysis reveals that the prior judicial approach, which permitted courts to engage in substantive evaluation of registration certificates during infringement proceedings, lacked a solid foundation in the structure of registration-based legal systems. It also presented challenges to the predictability and coherence of industrial property rights. Conversely, the new legislative directive to stay proceedings and defer substantive validity assessments to separate invalidation actions aligns with international norms and reinforces the systemic reliability of the registration framework. The requirement to channel validity challenges through distinct procedural mechanisms ensures procedural regularity and legal certainty for stakeholders.
 ‌Conclusion: The study concludes that Article 133 of the 2024 Industrial Property Protection Act represents a legally sound and functionally necessary departure from prior judicial practices. By prohibiting courts from directly assessing certificate validity and mandating a stay of proceedings in the face of substantive challenges, the legislature has affirmed the structural integrity of the registration system, upheld essential principles of industrial property law, and harmonized domestic legal practice with globally recognized procedural standards.