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 points of discussion may arise which are discussed below:

1. A Representative instance of the doctrine of ultra vires-

A statutory authority may have overstepped its legal powers by attempting to regulate an entity outside its jurisdiction. 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 and must adhere to legal principles.

2. Lack of comprehensive guidelines related to advertisements

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) especially for Patent and the Trademark agents. However, such comprehensive guidelines and set of rules have still not been framed or published till date.

3. Distinction between “Trademark Services” and “Legal Services”

Trademark Services falls under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and its Rules, not under the Advocates Act, 1961. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s direction to frame guidelines on advertisement for Trademark-related services indirectly portrays such services to be distinct from “Legal Services” and not being governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rules.

4. Discriminatory and Arbitrary Action – A Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution

The impugned public notice selectively targeted a specific online platform while ignoring the activities of other similar platforms with promotional activities without any such restrictions. Such selective enforcement counts as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution accordingly.

5.  Ad-hoc Code of Conduct Committee having no such Jurisdiction over any Online Platforms

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, that possessed strictly limited and circumscribed powers confined exclusively to inquire into complaints of professional misconduct against registered Patent and Trademark Agents under the Patents Act, 1970 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. However, it was never intended to regulate general online service platforms. Since online platforms is not a registered agent, any action against it is ultra vires, illegal, and void ab initio, violating the doctrine of ultra vires.

6. Violation of the Fundamental Principle of audi alteram partem

The authority had issued the impugned public notice against such service providers, without providing any prior notice, opportunity for hearing, or chance to respond to the allegations. This has 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.

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.