Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks to decide the Trademark application pending for more than 15 years, a Single-Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that the right to a speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark applications is an integral part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending applications expeditiously and emphasized that excessive delays keep the parties in state of uncertainty and prevent them from moving forward with their lives and businesses.
Background
The petitioner filed a trademark registration application for the mark ‘Breastone’ with the Registrar of Trademarks on 25-06-2010. The application was opposed by the 2nd respondent, 07-03-2013. After the pleadings were completed, the matter was posted for recording of evidence on 25-07-2017. Despite the passage of more than eight years since the last action, the application had not been decided. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction for the Registrar of Trademarks to decide the application expeditiously.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the Trademark Rules, 2017 (‘Rules of 2017’), provides complete procedure and mechanism or application of registration of trademark, any oppositions to the application and subsequent acceptance or rejection of application. Specifically, Rule 50 details the process for hearing and decision, including strict limits on adjournments. The Court perusing Rule 50 noted that after closure of evidence, notice for first date of hearing would be given to both parties for a date at least one month after the first notice, and under Rule 50(2), in case either party makes any request for adjournment of hearing with reasonable cause in the prescribed format within a prescribed period i.e. three days before the date of hearing. The Registrar may adjourn the matter by intimating the parties. In case of adjournments, maximum of 2 adjournments is allowed to each party lasting not more than 30 days. The Court noted that this indicated that a complete mechanism has been provided to expedite the disposal of the registration application.
The Court found it shocking and surprising that the petitioner’s application had been pending for over more than 15 years, which was a clear act of violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the Rule 50 of the Rules of 2017. The provisions contained under Rules of 2017 are to be followed in letter and spirit and the Registrar of Trademarks is not allowed to sit over the matter for an indefinite period.
The Court observed that excessive delays in resolving trademark applications undermine their purpose and can lead to a loss of evidence, increased costs, and a sense of injustice. It further stated that such prolonged delays can erode public confidence in the system and keep parties in a state of uncertainty. The Court also noted that these delays amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice, which require that statutory procedures be conducted in a fair and timely manner. The Court noted that the,
“right of speedy and expeditious disposal of these applications is one of the most valuable and cherished rights of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and enshrined under Article 21.”
Taking a serious note of the situation, the Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending applications expeditiously as early as possible in accordance with Rule 50 of the 2017 Rules. The Court directed the Registrar to decide the petitioner’s application within a period of three months from the date of the order.
The Court expressed its expectation that the Registrar of Trademarks would devise a strategy to address the backlog of pending applications.
The Court noted that,
“a fast and simple mechanism to secure the Intellectual Property Rights and in terms to secure the business, is tantamount and a need of the hour. By addressing this issue of delay in disposal of the pending Trademark Registration Applications, in an expeditious manner, the system can better serve the purpose in resolving the Trademark disputes fairly and effectively, upholding the principles of justice and maintaining public confidence.”
[Nirmala Kabra v. The Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4072, decided on 7-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar Gupta
For the Respondent: Divyesh Maheshwari
Buy Constitution of India HERE
