Delhi High Court Directs CGPDTM To Draft Code Of Conduct For Trademark And Patent Agents

Delhi High Court Directs CGPDTM To Draft Code Of Conduct For Trademark And Patent Agents

The Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) has been instructed to develop a comprehensive code of conduct for Trademark and Patent agents, following concerns raised by the Delhi High Court regarding widespread solicitation, deceptive advertising, and general negligence among the agents.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, delivering the decision, emphasized that while maintaining websites with contact information and service details is permissible, distributing pamphlets offering "special deals" or guaranteeing same-day registrations can mislead potential clients seeking intellectual property protection.

To address these issues, the CGPDTM has been tasked with conducting stakeholder consultations and implementing regulations to govern the conduct of trademark and patent agents. These new rules are expected to clearly define professional misconduct and negligence and establish a robust complaint mechanism.

Key directives from the court include:

Draft Code of Conduct: The CGPDTM is required to draft a code of conduct for patent and trademark agents within two months, making it available for public feedback on its website. The final version of the Code is slated for publication within six months or by December 31, 2024.

Complaint Framework: A comprehensive framework to manage complaints against Trademark and patent agents must be established within the same timeline. Pending its creation, an ad hoc committee will review complaints, comprising two Trademark/Patent office officials and a senior IP practitioner with at least 15 years of experience as a registered agent.

These directives stem from a petition filed by Saurav Chaudhary, who challenged the rejection of his patent application for a "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching." Alleging abandonment due to Delhi Intellectual Property LLP's cessation of communication, Chaudhary's case prompted Justice Singh to instruct the patent office to process his application in accordance with the law, overturning the abandonment decision. Additionally, the court ordered an investigation into Chaudhary's patent agent by the CGPDTM office.

"The investigation must be completed within four months," Justice Singh declared, emphasizing the agent's obligation to provide an explanation to the CGPDTM, followed by a scheduled hearing and a timely decision.