Tag: #RajasthanHighCourt

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

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

Date: 21.09.2026

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

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that trademark registration proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that the right to a speedy and expeditious hearing and timely disposal of statutory applications is an inalienable right of every litigant.

Justice Maneesh Sharma, allowing a writ petition filed by Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd., directed the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad to endeavour to decide the company’s pending trademark application along with the connected opposition expeditiously and preferably within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The order was passed on September 14, 2026, in Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9703/2026, Neutral Citation 2026:RJ-JP:36884.

Trademark Application Pending Since 2018

• Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd., which provides educational coaching and training services, approached the High Court complaining of prolonged delay in adjudication of its trademark proceedings.
• The company stated that it was already the registered proprietor of Trade Mark No. 2039137 dated October 18, 2010.
• It subsequently filed Trademark Application No. 3944189 in Class 41 for the same/associated mark “Mittal Commerce Class” before the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad on September 13, 2018.
• Despite completion of pleadings and filing of evidence, the trademark application remained undecided.
• The petitioner argued that this prolonged pendency was causing serious prejudice and was inconsistent with the statutory scheme contemplated under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Opposition Filed in 2020, But Proceedings Remained Undecided

• The High Court examined the procedural history and found that Trademark Application No. 3944189 had been filed on September 13, 2018.
• Opposition No. 1043339 was subsequently filed on May 4, 2020.
• After completion of pleadings by both parties, the matter was posted for evidence. However, the Court noted that nothing further had transpired despite the passage of more than six years.
• By the time the High Court considered the matter, the trademark application had remained pending for approximately eight years, while the opposition had been pending for more than six years.

Petitioner Invokes Rule 50 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017

• Mittal Commerce Classes relied principally upon Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which governs hearing and decision in trademark opposition proceedings.
• The company sought a direction requiring the Registrar to hear and finally dispose of the pending application and connected opposition without unnecessary adjournments or further avoidable delay.
• The petitioner initially sought disposal preferably within 30 days, although the High Court ultimately fixed a preferred period of four months.

What Does Rule 50 Require?

• The High Court reproduced Rule 50 in detail.
• Under Rule 50(1), after closure of evidence, the Registrar is required to issue notice to the parties specifying the first date of hearing. That hearing must be fixed for a date at least one month after the date of the first notice.
• Rule 50(2) allows a party to seek an adjournment for reasonable cause through Form TM-M, accompanied by the prescribed fee and filed at least three days before the hearing.

Crucially, the proviso imposes limits on adjournments:

No party can be granted more than two adjournments, and each adjournment cannot exceed 30 days.

• Rule 50 further provides consequences for non-appearance. If the applicant fails to appear on the adjourned hearing date, the application may be treated as abandoned; if the opponent fails to appear, the opposition may be dismissed for want of prosecution and the application may proceed toward registration, subject to Section 19.
• The Registrar must also consider written arguments submitted by the parties and communicate the final decision in writing.

Rajasthan HC: Rule 50 Shows Legislative Intent for Time-Bound Trademark Proceedings

• The High Court interpreted the strict limits on adjournments under Rule 50 as reflecting a clear legislative intention.
• Justice Sharma observed that the statutory restriction of a maximum of two adjournments, with each not exceeding 30 days, demonstrates that the Rules contemplate a complete and time-bound mechanism for expeditious disposal of trademark registration applications.
• The Court held that the framework leaves “no room for unnecessary or avoidable delay.”
• This observation is significant for applicants as well as opponents because prolonged pendency of trademark proceedings can create uncertainty regarding registration, enforcement and commercial exploitation of a mark.

Registry: Petitioner Had Not Filed Rule 34 Application

• The respondents opposed the writ petition.
• They argued that a writ petition merely seeking expedition of pending proceedings was not maintainable in the form presented.
• More importantly, they contended that Mittal Commerce Classes had not filed an application under Rule 34 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and was therefore not entitled to seek the relief claimed before the High Court.
• The High Court rejected this objection.

Failure to File Rule 34 Application Cannot Be an Absolute Bar: Rajasthan HC

Justice Sharma held that the petitioner’s failure to move a formal application seeking expedition under Rule 34 was merely a procedural omission and could not operate as an absolute bar against approaching the High Court for expeditious disposal of the trademark proceedings.

The Court observed:

“The mere procedural omission of not having moved a formal application for expediting the proceedings under Rule 34 cannot operate as an absolute bar…”

• Accordingly, the Registry’s procedural objection was rejected.
• This aspect of the ruling is particularly relevant because it prevents procedural technicalities from becoming a justification for continued and excessive delay in deciding statutory applications.

Excessive Delay in Trademark Proceedings Can Violate Natural Justice

• The Rajasthan High Court relied upon an earlier decision of its Coordinate Bench in Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18998/2022.
• In that case, the Court had emphasised that excessive delays in deciding trademark registration applications undermine the very purpose for which such applications are filed.

The judgment observed that prolonged proceedings can result in consequences including:

• loss of evidence;
• increased costs;
• continuing uncertainty for businesses and litigants; and
• erosion of public confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the statutory system.

Most importantly, the Coordinate Bench had held that excessive delay in disposal of applications amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, because statutory procedures must be conducted fairly and within a reasonable timeframe.

Speedy Disposal of Trademark Applications Protected Under Article 21

• The most significant constitutional aspect of the ruling concerns Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Quoting the earlier Nirmala Kabra decision, the Court reiterated that trademark registration applications cannot be allowed to remain pending for decades and that the Registrar of Trade Marks is not expected to keep such applications pending for an indefinite period.

The earlier judgment had declared:

“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…”

• Justice Sharma applied that principle to the case before him.
• The Court then independently observed that the right to a speedy and expeditious hearing and timely disposal of statutory applications is an inalienable right of every litigant.
• Such a valuable right, it held, cannot be curtailed or defeated on the altar of procedural technicalities.

Eight-Year Pendency Considered Unacceptable

• The factual timeline played an important role in the Court’s decision.
• The trademark application had been pending since September 13, 2018, while the opposition had remained pending since May 4, 2020.

The High Court recorded that this amounted to approximately:

Proceeding	Date	Pendency noted by Court
Trademark Application No. 3944189	September 13, 2018	About 8 years
Opposition No. 1043339	May 4, 2020	More than 6 years
Class	Class 41	Educational/coaching services
Order of Rajasthan HC	September 14, 2026	Writ allowed

The Court concluded that such prolonged pendency justified issuance of a direction to the Registrar.

Registrar Directed to Decide Trademark Application Preferably Within Four Months

• The Rajasthan High Court ultimately allowed the writ petition.
• It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad to make an endeavour to decide Trademark Application No. 3944189 together with Opposition No. 1043339 expeditiously and preferably within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the High Court’s order.
• All other pending applications in the writ proceedings were consequently disposed of.
• Importantly, the High Court did not decide whether the “Mittal Commerce Classes” trademark should ultimately be registered or whether the opposition should succeed.
• The judgment concerns the delay in adjudication and the petitioner’s right to obtain a timely decision. The merits of the trademark application and opposition remain for the Registrar to determine.

Why the Judgment Is Important for Trademark Applicants and Opponents

• The ruling has wider implications for parties facing long-pending proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry.
• First, it reinforces that statutory trademark proceedings are expected to progress within a reasonable and time-bound framework, particularly once evidence has been completed and the matter has reached the hearing stage.
• Second, the Court’s interpretation of Rule 50 emphasises that repeated adjournments cannot be used to indefinitely postpone adjudication. The Rules themselves cap both the number and duration of adjournments.
• Third, the ruling indicates that failure to first file a procedural application seeking expedition under Rule 34 does not necessarily prevent a litigant from approaching the High Court where extraordinary delay has already occurred.
• Finally, by connecting speedy disposal with Article 21 and principles of natural justice, the Rajasthan High Court has treated delay not merely as an administrative inconvenience but as an issue capable of affecting substantive procedural rights.

Important Legal Distinction

• The judgment should not be interpreted as granting Mittal Commerce Classes registration of its trademark.
• The High Court has not adjudicated the merits of Trademark Application No. 3944189 or Opposition No. 1043339. It has instead directed the Registrar to bring the long-pending statutory proceedings to a timely conclusion.
• The eventual question of whether the mark should be accepted or refused—and whether the opposition should succeed—remains within the jurisdiction of the Trade Marks Registry.

Key Takeaway

The Rajasthan High Court has sent a clear message against indefinite pendency of trademark applications and opposition proceedings.

Where an application filed in 2018 and an opposition filed in 2020 remained unresolved despite completion of the procedural stages, the Court held that procedural technicalities such as failure to file a Rule 34 application could not defeat the litigant’s right to seek timely adjudication.

The Court’s reliance on Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution makes the decision particularly relevant to trademark applicants and opponents facing prolonged delays before the Registry.

Connected Matter

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

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