Introduction: The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has proposed amendments to the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, through the Draft Trade Marks (1st Amendment) Rules, 2024. These changes aim to enhance trademark governance effectiveness and streamline the adjudication process under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, a critical analysis reveals both positive steps and areas for improvement.

Equality and Transparency:

The lack of public calls for stakeholder consultations and undisclosed information about the drafters raises transparency concerns. Inclusive consultations, as seen in other regulatory bodies, are crucial for a comprehensive perspective. A more diverse stakeholder engagement, including smaller businesses, is essential.

Proposed Amendments:

1. Introduction of New Definitions:

• Expanding the definition of “complainant” to include “any person” aligns with transparency and accountability principles.
• Clarity is needed on the obligations of the “Appellant” to inform the “other party” under Proposed Rule 105G(2).
• The term “summary proceedings” in Proposed Rule 105D requires clarification for better understanding.

2. Limited Scope of Penalties:

• The limited role of the Adjudicating Officer to offenses under Section 107 may exclude offenses committed by companies under Section 114.
• Clarity is required on filing complaints under both Section 107 and Section 114 for offenses involving companies.

3. Summary Proceedings:

• Swift dismissal of cases lacking merit can expedite complaint resolution.
• Care must be taken to avoid overlooking valid complaints in the pursuit of efficiency.

4. Introduction of Compensation Provision:

• The lack of clarity on the authority to award compensation raises concerns about adherence to legal provisions.
• Detailed guidelines on determining compensation amounts and the authority to grant compensation are necessary.

5. Ensuring Clarity in Deadlines and Procedures:

• Ambiguities in timelines and procedures need clarification to prevent disruptions.
• Adequate time for written statements and a clear definition of “endorsement” are essential.
• Clarity is needed on whether complainants should be granted an opportunity to be heard before a prima facie finding is made.

Conclusion:

The proposed amendments represent a commendable effort to modernize trademark governance, addressing procedural gaps. While the amendments can enhance the trademark regime, addressing transparency concerns, clarifying ambiguous language, and engaging in inclusive consultations are crucial for a balanced and effective framework.