Hon’ble Calcutta High Court Grants Stay on Public Notice Issued by CGPDTM Office

The Office of The Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) issued a public notice vide Notice No. CG/F/CGPDTM/DL-09/1232 dated September 30, 2025, raising concerns on certain firms engaging in advertising and solicitation of legal services through various digital and online platforms. The public notice specifically flagged such sources to be advertising and frequently reaching out to stakeholders for the registration of trademark through online registration services via various promotional and social media platforms. Further clarifications were provided by the office of The CGPDTM that as per the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the “Registered Trade Mark Agents” and/or an “Advocate” with the meaning of the Advocates Act, 1961 is only authorized to practice before the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Certain issues emerge in light of the public notice. First, established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the authority holds regulatory and administrative powers over trademark matters and quasi-judicial functions. However, its jurisdiction is limited which might have led to overstepping its legal powers by attempting to regulate an entity outside its jurisdiction. Second, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in W.P. (C)-IPD 9/2023, had recognized the need for clearer guidelines and the court had mandated the framing of comprehensive guidelines and implement a comprehensive set of rules by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) which have still not been framed or published till date. Third, trademark services are governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and its corresponding Rules—not the Advocates Act, 1961. Fourth, the impugned public notice singled out a particular online platform while overlooking other similar platforms engaging in promotional activities without any such restrictions. Such selective enforcement counts as discriminatory, arbitrary and stands in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution accordingly. Fifth, the Ad-hoc Code of Conduct Committee, was constituted pursuant of the judgement and directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C)-IPD 9/2023) dated July 4, 2024 to inquire into complaints of professional misconduct against registered Patent and Trademark Agents under the Patents Act, 1970 and corresponding Rules. However, it was never intended to regulate general online service platforms and any such attempt constitutes a violation of the doctrine of ultra vires. Lastly, such impugned public notice against online service platform without providing any prior notice, opportunity for hearing, or a chance to respond to the allegations, further constituted a clear violation of audi alteram partem, a fundamental principle of administrative fairness.

At present, the impugned public notice has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, where the legality of the said notice is now under judicial scrutiny before this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble HC was pleased to allow a stay in favor of the petitioner and subsequently a communication was sent by the petitioner to the respondent as a compliance of stay.

Vide: WPA/23994/2025

Disclaimer:
The contents of this document are intended solely for general informational and academic purposes. The issues discussed herein relate to a matter that is sub judice before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. Nothing contained in this note should be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or as a comment on the judicial proceedings pending before any court or authority.

The analysis presented is based on publicly available information and established legal principles, and it does not constitute legal advice, advocacy, or representation. Readers are advised to await the final adjudication of the matter by the competent court before drawing any conclusions.