India's Trademark Registry Is Changing Its Procedures: What Brand Owners Need To Do Differently

On 21 August 2026, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks invited comments, within fifteen days, on a revised draft of the Manual of the Trade Marks Office (Practice and Procedure). The draft runs from filing and examination through hearings, oppositions, rectification and the determination of well-known marks, and it is the most complete statement in years of how the Trade Marks Registry intends to work. Yet it is not law. If it conflicts with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Act and the Rules prevail.

That distinction is the key to understanding what brand owners actually need to do. In short, the Registry's procedures are changing in three ways at once, i.e., through mandatory e-KYC for the professionals who represent brand owners, through new procedural arrangements for well-known trademark applications, and through a revised manual that describes, and in places proposes, how examination, hearings and oppositions should be conducted. Only some of these changes carry legal force. However, all of them affect how a trademark portfolio should be managed, because the Registry increasingly communicates electronically, enforces its timelines strictly and decides matters on the record.

This article explains each development, distinguishes binding requirements from guidance, and sets out what businesses managing trademark portfolios in India should do differently. It is written for brand owners, in-house legal and IP teams, and their advisers.

Three Layers: What Binds and What Guides

Before turning to the changes, it helps to be clear about the hierarchy of sources.

Hence, a brand owner who misses a deadline under the Rules may lose its application or opposition, whereas a departure from a practice described in the draft manual will not of itself have that effect. The manual is nonetheless important, as it shows how examiners and hearing officers are likely to approach a matter.

E-KYC: Check That Your Representatives Have Complied

By a public notice of July 2026, the Office of the Controller General required all attorneys enrolled in its register, including those seeking access to the IP India online portals, to complete an e-KYC process through the e-filing portal. The deadline was extended more than once, and a final extension ran until 30 September 2026.

The requirement applies to professionals rather than directly to brand owners. However, its practical effect falls on brand owners, as a representative who has not completed the process may face difficulty filing documents or responding to Registry communications on their behalf. Brand owners should therefore confirm that every attorney or agent acting on their portfolio has completed e-KYC, and that the authorisations on record with the Registry reflect who actually represents them. The Registry has separately reported that it now verifies agent codes against the powers of attorney on record, which makes this alignment more important still.

Accurate Applicant Records Are No Longer Optional

The Registry now communicates largely by email and through its online systems. Examination reports, hearing notices and certificates are generated and dispatched electronically, and the revised draft manual describes notices of opposition being entered into the Registry's tribunal module and served by post or email. A communication sent to an outdated email address or address for service is unlikely to be treated as unserved simply because the brand owner did not receive it.

The consequences can be severe, because the Rules attach strict timelines to several steps. A reply to an examination report must be filed within one month. An applicant who receives a notice of opposition must file its counter-statement within two months, failing which the application is treated as abandoned under Section 21 of the Act. Evidence in an opposition must also be filed within the periods the Rules prescribe. Brand owners should therefore keep their applicant names, addresses, email addresses and agent details current for every application and registration, and record changes promptly through the appropriate forms.

Well-Known Marks: New Arrangements, Same Legal Test

The Registry has made several procedural changes to applications for determination of well-known trademarks under Rule 124 of the Rules. In 2026 it moved the handling of these applications to its office in New Delhi, and in May 2026 it sought stakeholder feedback on a new e-filing module for documents supporting well-known mark applications, while making clear that the module was still under development.

The revised draft manual adds a dedicated chapter on well-known marks. Among other things, it proposes that objections to a request be forwarded to the applicant, who would have thirty days to respond, that both sides may be heard, and that the Registrar should pass a reasoned order. Until the manual is finalised, these remain proposed practices rather than binding requirements.

The legal test itself has not changed. Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act defines a well-known trademark, and Sections 11(6) to 11(9) set out the factors the Registrar must consider, including the knowledge or recognition of the mark among the relevant section of the public, the duration, extent and geographical area of its use and promotion, its registrations, and the record of successful enforcement. Importantly, Section 11(9) makes clear that the Registrar may not require use or registration in India, or recognition by the public at large, as a condition of well-known status.

For brand owners, the practical point is that a well-known determination is only as strong as the evidence behind it. Evidence of sales, advertising expenditure, media coverage, market surveys, registrations across jurisdictions and court decisions recognising the mark should be gathered, organised and verified well before an application is filed, rather than assembled in response to an objection.

Prior Use: Evidence Must Be Built, Not Reconstructed

Prior use matters throughout the life of a trademark. Under Section 34 of the Act, a registered proprietor cannot prevent a person who has continuously used an identical or similar mark from an earlier date, and prior use is frequently decisive in oppositions and rectification proceedings. The revised draft manual also addresses the evidence relevant to establishing earlier use.

The difficulty for many businesses is that evidence of first use is assembled only when a dispute arises, by which time invoices, advertisements and packaging from earlier years may be hard to find. Brand owners should keep dated records of the first use of each mark in each market, retain representative samples of labels, packaging, invoices and promotional material, and ensure that any claim of use made in an application is supported by evidence that would withstand scrutiny in an opposition.

Examination, Hearings and Oppositions

The Registry has been working to reduce its backlog of examination and opposition matters. Reported measures include consolidated examination reports covering both formal and substantive objections, reasoned electronic orders, the publication of hearing notices online, limits on adjournments and the disposal of some opposition matters on written submissions and the record. In August 2026 it also announced a special drive to dispose of pending opposition matters by settlement or withdrawal.

The revised draft manual proposes, among other things, that show cause hearing notices be sent by email about thirty days before the hearing. The Rules themselves do not fix such a period, so this should be treated as an indication of intended practice rather than a right on which an applicant can insist. What the Rules do fix is a limit on adjournments, as Rule 115 allows no more than two adjournments, each of no more than thirty days.

The combined effect is that brand owners have less room for delay than in the past. Responses should be prepared on the assumption that adjournments will be limited and that a matter may be decided on the written record, which places a premium on complete and well-organised submissions and evidence at the first opportunity.

What Brand Owners Should Do Differently

1. Audit representation. Confirm that every attorney or agent acting for you has completed e-KYC, and that powers of attorney on record are current.
2. Clean up applicant records. Verify names, addresses for service and email addresses across the portfolio, and update them through the prescribed forms.
3. Monitor Registry communications actively. Track email, the e-register and online hearing lists, and do not rely on postal service.
4. Diarise statutory deadlines. Treat the one-month examination response period, the two-month counter-statement period and the evidence timelines under the Rules as fixed.
5. Build evidence continuously. Maintain organised, dated evidence of use, reputation and enforcement for key marks, particularly those for which well-known status may be sought.
6. Follow the manual, but rely on the Rules. Use the revised draft manual to anticipate how the Registry will approach a matter, but do not treat its proposals as rights or obligations until it is finalised.

Conclusion

The Trade Marks Registry is becoming faster, more digital and less tolerant of delay. The e-KYC requirement, the new arrangements for well-known marks and the revised draft manual each point in that direction, even though only some of them carry legal force. The binding framework remains the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and the draft manual should be read as a guide to how that framework will be applied rather than as a replacement for it. Thus, brand owners who keep their records accurate, monitor the Registry closely and build their evidence before they need it will be well placed to benefit from a more efficient Registry, rather than to be caught out by it.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.