Trademark Application Can Be Examined By Authorized Officer, Not Only Officer From Appropriate Office: Madras High Court

While Section 18(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires a trademark application to be filed in the Trade Marks Registry office within whose territorial limits the applicant's principal place of business in India is situated, governs the place of filing, the Madras High Court has clarified that the statute does not require that the application must be examined only by an officer attached to that very office.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 4, 2026, held that under Section 3(2) of the Act, the Registrar is empowered to authorize officers to discharge the functions of the Registrar, and neither the Act nor the Trade Marks Rules restrict such authorization to officers attached to the “appropriate office”.

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Solariz Healthcare Private Limited, holding that the company's objection to an order passed by a Mumbai-based Senior Examiner was based on a “fundamental misconception” of the law, since there is no requirement in the statute or rules that only the officer of the appropriate office must examine a trademark application.

Solariz Healthcare had challenged an order dated October 28, 2025, passed in relation to its trademark application, contending that the order was without jurisdiction because it was issued by a Senior Examiner attached to the Mumbai branch of the Trade Marks Registry. The company argued that since its principal place of business is in Chennai, the Chennai Registry is the only “appropriate office” under Rule 4 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the official at the Mumbai office was not empowered to act on the file and argued that the power under Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act is confined to administrative functions.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed:

“An application for registration is required to be filed by the applicant in the office of the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of business in India of the applicant is situated. This is prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 18. Sub-section (4) of Section 18 empowers the Registrar to refuse the application or accept it either absolutely or subject to conditions, modifications or limitations. There is nothing either in the statute or in the rules framed thereunder, which require that only an officer attached to the appropriate office should examine applications and either accept or refuse the same. Because this petition has been filed based on a fundamental misconception, the petition fails.”

The court noted that Section 3(2) enables other officers to discharge the functions of the Registrar under his superintendence, and the law does not require that such functions be exercised only by officers attached to the office where the application was filed.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner would still be at liberty to challenge the merits of the impugned order by filing an appeal under the relevant provision.