Delhi High Court flags need to regulate trademark and patent agents, seeks report from IP authority

The Delhi High Court has asked the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to reveal how it intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark and patent agents in the country. [Saurav Chaudhary v. Union of India & Anr].Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that trademark and patent agents have a “huge responsibility” of applying, registering and maintaining trademarks and patents. They also have a responsibility to adhere to deadlines in the process, the judge noted.Despite this, there was no supervisory or regulatory authority governing trademark and patent agents."There is no supervisory or regulatory authority over trademark and patent agents which appears to be the need of the hour. There are repeated cases wherein litigants have raised allegations against such Trade Marks Agents and Patent Agents and apart from reprimand from courts, there are no other consequences that visit them," the order said..The Court acknowledged that in order to be able to file any patent and qualify as a patent agent, the person would have to fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Patents Act and Rules, and also clear the examination for the same.It noted that such patent agents do not come within the ambit of the Bar Council of India or the Advocates’ Act, 1961..It was further observed that the Indian Intellectual Property Office has seen a steady increase in the filing of trademark and patent applications over the last five years..In this backdrop, Justice Singh proceeded to ask counsel representing the Central government to obtain instructions on how the CGPDTM intends to regulate or supervise the functioning of trademark agents and patent agents.A report has to be filed before the Court by the next date of hearing..The Court was hearing a petition seeking the restoration of a patent application. The petitioner told the Court that he had filed an application through M/s Delhi Intellectual Property LLP, but that the application was later deemed to be abandoned due to the non-filing of a response. Repeated follow-ups with the patent agent had yielded no response, compelling the petitioner to engage a new patent agent.In response to a notice, the LLP's patent agent, Naveen Chaklan, appeared before the High Court on September 1. He submitted that he would need to verify emails and WhatsApp messages concerning the petitioner.The Court proceeded to direct Chaklan to file an affidavit explaining the position leading up to the abandonment of the patent application. With this, the matter was adjourned till November 9. .Advocates Meenakshi Ogra, Rishi Vohra, Tarun Khurana and Chhavi Panday represented the petitioner.Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman and Advocate Zubin Singh represented the Central government..[Read Order]