Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have become central to the modern knowledge-based economy, making the effective resolution of intellectual property disputes an increasingly significant legal and commercial concern. The growing internationalization of trade, digital commerce, technological innovation, and cross-border exploitation of intellectual assets has led to a corresponding rise in the volume, complexity, and transnational character of IPR disputes. This paper examines the intersection between intellectual property law and dispute resolution by analysing the mechanisms available for resolving disputes involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, and trade secrets. Employing a doctrinal and analytical research methodology, the study evaluates domestic litigation, administrative proceedings, arbitration, mediation, expert determination, and international dispute resolution frameworks operating under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The paper further examines the Indian framework for IPR dispute resolution, including recent institutional developments, compulsory licensing, Section 3(d) patent disputes, and the growing role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The study finds that while courts continue to play a vital role in enforcing intellectual property rights, arbitration and mediation offer significant advantages in terms of confidentiality, technical expertise, procedural flexibility, and cross-border enforceability. It also identifies emerging challenges arising from artificial intelligence, standard-essential patents and FRAND disputes, digital piracy, platform liability, and the fragmented nature of international enforcement mechanisms. The paper concludes that the existing dispute resolution framework remains uneven and jurisdictionally fragmented. It recommends greater harmonisation of international enforcement standards, clearer rules on the arbitrability of intellectual property disputes, the strengthening of specialised adjudicatory institutions, reforms to international dispute settlement mechanisms, and enhanced accessibility of ADR processes for innovators, creators, and small and medium-sized enterprises. This would contribute towards a more efficient, coherent, and globally responsive system of intellectual property dispute resolution.