For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
On 7 August 2025, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, delivered a significant judgment in Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Hassnar Health and Personal Care, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18998/2022. The case concerned an issue that has long troubled India’s intellectual property regime, the extraordinary delays in deciding trademark registration applications. The petitioner’s trademark application had been left undecided for over 15 years, despite the statutory framework requiring time-bound adjudication. The Court held that such prolonged inaction violated not only the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 but also the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court went beyond resolving the petitioner’s grievance and issued wider directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to address backlogs in a timely manner.
Facts of the Case
The facts unfolded over a long span of time. On 25 June 2010, Mrs. Nirmala Kabra, who was trading under the name M/s Action (India) Pharmaceuticals Division, filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking registration of the mark “Breastone.” After three years, on 7 March 2013, the application faced opposition from Respondent No. 2, Hassnar Health and Personal Care, which filed a formal notice contesting the registration. The matter then proceeded in the usual manner and, once pleadings were completed, it was listed for recording of evidence on 25 July 2017.
However, no progress occurred thereafter. For the next eight years, the matter remained stagnant at the evidence stage, and by 2025 more than fifteen years had elapsed since the original application had been filed. This prolonged delay, with no decision in sight, compelled Mrs. Kabra to approach the Rajasthan High Court in 2022 by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. She sought directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide her application within a fixed time frame. As this was a writ petition, there were no lower court decisions to consider; the challenge was directly to the inaction of the Registrar.
Arguments in Favour
The petitioner argued that the delay of over fifteen years was wholly unjustified and contrary to the statutory scheme. She placed reliance on Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, which lays down a detailed procedure to be followed once evidence is completed. According to this Rule, the Registrar must fix a date for hearing by giving one month’s notice to the parties, restrict adjournments to a maximum of two, and finally deliver a reasoned order in writing. None of these steps had been followed in the petitioner’s case.
It was further submitted that the inaction of the Registrar caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, whose business interests and legal rights remained uncertain for more than a decade and a half. Such indefinite delay, she argued, was contrary to the principles of natural justice. She stressed that justice delayed is justice denied, and in this instance, the delay amounted to an outright denial of justice. The petitioner therefore prayed for a direction to the Registrar to immediately adjudicate upon her trademark application within a fixed period.
Arguments Against
The Registrar of Trade Marks opposed the petition but was unable to controvert the factual assertions made by the petitioner. The counsel admitted that there was indeed a heavy backlog of trademark applications before the Registrar, which explained the delay in disposing of matters. However, apart from citing the burden of pending cases, no valid justification or specific explanation was provided as to why the petitioner’s application had remained undecided for over fifteen years.
Court’s Decision
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered a strongly worded judgment, criticising the Registrar for keeping the application pending for such an extraordinary length of time. The Court described the delay as both “shocking and surprising” and proceeded to hold that the inaction amounted to a violation of statutory rules, constitutional guarantees, and the principles of natural justice.
The Court first considered the statutory framework. Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 provides a complete mechanism for ensuring speedy hearings and disposal of applications. The Registrar has no authority to keep matters pending indefinitely once pleadings and evidence are complete. The prolonged pendency of the petitioner’s application was therefore in direct violation of this Rule.
The Court then turned to the wider implications of such delays. It observed that prolonged inaction undermines the very purpose of filing trademark applications, causes unnecessary expense to litigants, risks loss of evidence, and seriously erodes public confidence in the intellectual property system. Such delay, the Court noted, not only prejudices individual applicants but also damages the credibility of the trademark registration process as a whole.
On the constitutional dimension, the Court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Relying on precedents such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, where the Supreme Court first recognised the right to speedy trial, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, and Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33, Justice Dhand reaffirmed that the right to speedy justice is an integral part of Article 21. He extended this principle to trademark proceedings, holding that applicants have a fundamental right to expeditious disposal of their applications.
Finally, the Court emphasised the principles of natural justice. The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” was particularly apt in this case, where the petitioner had been left in legal limbo for over a decade and a half. The Court held that the delay amounted to a denial of justice itself.
In terms of relief, the Court issued both general and specific directions. It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that all pending applications are disposed of expeditiously in accordance with Rule 50 of the 2017 Rules. Specifically, it ordered that Mrs. Kabra’s application for the mark “Breastone” be decided within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court also urged the Registrar to devise a broader strategy to tackle the backlog and establish a fast and effective mechanism for adjudicating intellectual property rights.
Conclusion
The judgment in Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks is a forceful reminder that bureaucratic inertia cannot override statutory obligations and constitutional rights. By insisting on adherence to Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, and by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the Rajasthan High Court has extended the guarantee of speedy justice to the field of trademark registration.
For applicants, this decision brings much-needed relief, assuring them that they cannot be left in uncertainty for decades. For the Registrar, it is a warning that prolonged inaction will no longer be tolerated. By reaffirming that justice delayed is justice denied, the Court has underlined the importance of timely protection of intellectual property, not merely as a technical right but as an essential element of business confidence and economic growth.
This case is not just about the registration of the trademark “Breastone.” It is about restoring credibility to India’s intellectual property system. By recognising that efficiency and fairness are integral to justice, the Rajasthan High Court has signalled that intellectual property rights are fundamental business rights deserving timely recognition and protection.
