Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 22.09.2026

Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

The Rajasthan High Court has held that trademark registration applications cannot be kept pending indefinitely, observing that excessive delay in deciding such applications violates principles of natural justice and that the right to their speedy and expeditious disposal is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made the observations while dealing with a petition filed by Mrs. Nirmala Kabra, whose application for registration of the trademark “Breastone”, filed in June 2010, had remained undecided for more than 15 years.

Trademark Application Pending Since 2010

• The petitioner approached the High Court with a limited prayer seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide her application for registration of the mark “Breastone.”
• The application had been filed on 25 June 2010. According to the petitioner, despite the passage of considerable time, the Registrar had neither decided the application nor passed a reasoned and speaking order. She therefore sought a time-bound direction for disposal of the application.
• The Registrar opposed the petition, though the Court recorded that counsel appearing for the Registrar was not in a position to controvert the petitioner’s submissions.

Opposition Filed in 2013; Matter Stagnant After 2017

• Examining the record, the High Court found that the application for “Breastone” was filed on 25 June 2010 and was subsequently opposed by Respondent No. 2, Hassnar Health and Personal Care, through an opposition dated 7 March 2013.
• After completion of pleadings, the matter was posted for recording evidence on 25 July 2017. However, according to the judgment, nothing further had been done for more than eight years thereafter.
• The case thus presented what the Court regarded as a striking example of delay in India’s trademark registration system.

Rule 50 of Trade Marks Rules Provides Time-Bound Framework

• The High Court examined Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which governs hearing and decision in trademark opposition proceedings.
• Rule 50 requires the Registrar, after closure of evidence, to notify the parties of the first date of hearing. It also regulates adjournments and provides that no party should receive more than two adjournments, with each adjournment not exceeding 30 days.
• The Court observed that these restrictions demonstrate that the Rules contain a mechanism intended to ensure expeditious disposal of trademark registration proceedings.

15-Year Delay Violated Rule 50: High Court

• The High Court strongly criticised the delay.
• It observed that the trademark application had remained pending for more than one and a half decades, which the Court treated as a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 50.
• The Registrar, the Court said, is expected to follow the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 in their “letter and spirit” and cannot be permitted to keep matters pending indefinitely.

Excessive Delay Violates Principles of Natural Justice

• The judgment also addressed the broader consequences of administrative delay in intellectual property proceedings.
• According to the Court, prolonged pendency can lead to loss of evidence, increased costs and a sense of injustice among the parties. Such delays may also undermine public confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the statutory system and leave businesses in prolonged uncertainty.
• Significantly, the Court held that excessive delay in disposal of trademark applications amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice, since statutory procedures are required to be conducted fairly and within a timely framework.

Speedy Disposal of Trademark Applications Is Protected Under Article 21

• One of the most significant observations in the judgment concerns Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The High Court held that trademark registration applications cannot remain pending for decades and that the Registrar is expected to decide them within a reasonable period.
• The Court went on to state that the right to speedy and expeditious disposal of such applications is a valuable and cherished right of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21, treating it as an integral and essential component of the fundamental right to life.
• This gives the judgment significance beyond the individual trademark dispute, because the Court connected administrative efficiency in trademark proceedings with constitutional principles of timely decision-making.

Registrar Directed to Decide “Breastone” Application Within Three Months

• Taking serious note of the fact that the petitioner’s application had remained undecided for more than 15 years, the High Court issued both case-specific and general directions.
• For Mrs. Kabra’s application, the Registrar was directed to decide the pending trademark application as expeditiously as possible and within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
• Importantly, the High Court did not direct registration of the trademark “Breastone” and did not decide the merits of the opposition. The relief was confined to ensuring a timely decision by the competent statutory authority.

General Direction for All Pending Trademark Applications

• The Court did not restrict its observations to the petitioner’s individual application.
• It issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide all pending applications expeditiously, as early as possible and in accordance with Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
• This aspect gives the judgment wider administrative significance for applicants whose trademark registration or opposition proceedings have remained pending for extended periods.

High Court Calls for Strategy to Address Trademark Backlog

• Before concluding, the Court also addressed the systemic problem of pending trademark applications.
• It expected the Registrar of Trade Marks to develop a strategy to tackle the backlog and observed that a fast and simple mechanism for securing intellectual property rights and protecting businesses is the need of the hour.
• According to the Court, expeditious disposal of pending trademark applications would enable the system to resolve disputes more fairly and effectively while maintaining public confidence in the trademark administration framework. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar of Trade Marks for necessary compliance.

Why the Judgment Matters

• The ruling carries significance for trademark applicants and businesses facing prolonged delays before the Trade Marks Registry. It establishes three notable propositions from the Court’s reasoning: Rule 50 provides an expeditious procedural framework; excessive administrative delay can violate principles of natural justice; and the Court treated speedy disposal of trademark applications as protected by Article 21.
• At the same time, the judgment should not be read as creating automatic registration rights merely because an application has remained pending for a long period. The Registrar retains authority to decide the application and any opposition on their merits.

Key Takeaway

The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that the Trade Marks Registry cannot allow registration applications to remain undecided for decades. In Mrs. Nirmala Kabra’s case, a trademark application pending for more than 15 years prompted the Court not only to direct its disposal within three months but also to issue a broader direction for expeditious disposal of pending trademark applications and call upon the Registrar to formulate a strategy to tackle the backlog.

Connected Matter

Rajasthan High Court: Trademark Applications Cannot Remain Pending Indefinitely; Speedy Disposal Is a Right Protected Under Article 21

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi