The Delhi High Court on Thursday acknowledged the widespread solicitation, misleading advertisements, and negligence by trademark and patent agents, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (CGPDTM) to establish a code of conduct to regulate such agents [Saurav Chaudhary v Union of India & Anr].
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that while it may not be illegal for patent, trademark, and similar agents to have a website providing contact details and information about their services, pamphlets promising registrations within a day or offering ‘special deals’ can significantly impact clients and applicants seeking these services.
Therefore, the Court ordered that the CGPDTM conduct stakeholder consultations and implement guidelines to regulate the conduct of patent and trademark agents. These guidelines should specify what constitutes professional misconduct and negligence and establish a mechanism for filing complaints.
Justice Prathiba M Singh’s Directions:
A draft Code of Conduct to regulate Patent and Trademark Agents should be prepared and posted on the CGPDTM website within two months for stakeholder consultation. The final Code of Conduct should be notified within six months, by December 31, 2024.
Within this period, a framework for handling complaints against Trademark and Patent Agents should be established. Until then, any complaints filed against these agents should be reviewed and decided by an ad-hoc committee consisting of at least two officials from the trademark/patent office and one senior IP practitioner with at least 15 years of practice as a registered Patent/Trademark Agent. This ad-hoc committee should be notified within two months.
The Court issued these directions while addressing a plea filed by Saurav Chaudhary, challenging the abandonment of his patent application titled “Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching”.
Chaudhary had hired the firm Delhi Intellectual Property LLP to file his patent application. However, the firm failed to respond to his inquiries, leading to the abandonment of his application.
After reviewing the case, Justice Singh set aside the abandonment order and instructed the patent office to proceed with Chaudhary’s application in accordance with the law. The Court also directed the CGPDTM to conduct an inquiry against the patent agent engaged by Chaudhary.
“The inquiry shall be conducted and concluded within four months. This order serves as a notice to the Patent Agent to explain his actions to the CGPDTM’s office. A personal hearing shall be afforded, and an order shall be passed within four months,” the Court ordered.
Representations:
Advocates Neeraj Grover, Meenakshi Ogra, Tarun Khurana, Samrat S Kang, Rishi Vohra, Hemant Kataria, Chhavi Pandey, and Amarjeet Kumar appeared for petitioner Saurav Chaudhary.
The Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman.
Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, along with advocates Nancy Roy, Archana Sachdeva, Sushant M Singh, Kruttika Vijay, Raghav Malik, Ananya Chug, and Sushant Singh, represented the intervenor Intellectual Property Attorneys’ Association (IPAA).
