The trademark registration system has experienced a surge in applications during the past decade. This has made India one of the largest filers of trademark applications in the world. However, this demand has also created significant backlogs, with hundreds of thousands of pending applications. Such delay has led to legal uncertainty, reduced business growth and adverse effects on the rights of trademark holders. The recent decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nirmala Kabra v The Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr shows the need to address this problem as a matter of urgency.
Manisha Singh
Partner
LexOrbis
The petitioner, trading as M/s Action (India) Pharmaceuticals Division, filed an application in 2010 for the registration of the trademark Breastone. However, the registrar reached no decision during the next 15 years. After the application was made, the second respondent, Hassnar Health and Personal Care, filed an opposition in 2013. After pleadings closed, the matter was moved for the recording of evidence in 2017. Despite this, the registrar took no further action.
Because of the delay of more than a decade and a half, the petitioner sought a direction from the Rajasthan High Court under article 226 of the constitution, requiring the registrar to decide the application within a reasonable time.
The petition raised important questions concerning the delay in deciding trademark applications and whether the Registrar of Trade Marks can allow an application to remain pending for longer than a decade. This was despite statutory rules requiring timely disposal. The interpretation of rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (rules) was at issue, as was whether the registrar must adhere strictly to the prescribed timelines for hearings and decisions.
The case concerned the violation of principles of natural justice and whether prolonged inaction amounted to a denial of justice and a fair hearing. Also raised was the issue of whether such unreasonable delay violated article 21 of the constitution.
Shivi Gupta
Associate partner
LexOrbis
The Rajasthan High Court strongly criticised the registrar’s failure to act within the set framework. It held that rule 50 of the rules prescribes a clear mechanism for hearings, adjournments and decisions after the close of evidence. The rule allows a maximum of two adjournments, each not to exceed 30 days. By letting the matter remain dormant as he did, the registrar had clearly violated these mandatory provisions.
The court further emphasised that excessive delay in resolving trademark applications undermines the very purpose of the registration process. It not only causes the loss of evidence and an increase in costs but also creates uncertainty for businesses seeking to protect their intellectual property assets. This erodes public confidence in the trademark system.
Significantly, the court linked timely adjudication to the fundamental right under article 21, holding that the right to a speedy disposal is an integral part of the right to life. Trademark applicants, as with litigants in other areas of the law, cannot be left in a state of indefinite uncertainty.
The court directed the registrar to decide all pending applications expeditiously in compliance with rule 50. It specifically directed the registrar to adjudicate the pending application for the Breastone application within three months of receiving a certified copy of its order. The court also expressed its strong expectation that the registrar will develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce the backlog of trademark applications and put in place a quick and straightforward mechanism. Such a mechanism is essential to protect IP rights and maintain business confidence.
This landmark decision confirms the importance of timely adjudication in intellectual property law. By recognising delay as a violation of natural justice and a breach of the constitutional right to life under article 21, the high court elevated the issue from one of mere administrative inefficiency to a concern for fundamental rights.
The judgment sends a clear message that sitting on applications will not be tolerated. Businesses now have hopes of greater certainty and predictability in securing trademark protection. At a systemic level, it highlights the urgent need for structural reforms and resource allocation in the trademark registry to ensure that delay does not deny justice.
Manisha Singh is a partner and Shivi Gupta is an associate partner at LexOrbis
LexOrbis
709/710 Tolstoy House
15-17 Tolstoy Marg
New Delhi – 110 001
India
www.lexorbis.com
Mumbai | Bengaluru
Contact details:
T: +91 11 2371 6565
E: mail@lexorbis.com
