Concerns on the Draft Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules, 2025

The newly proposed amendments — especially the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee under Rule 151D — require serious reconsideration.

The draft places three senior Trademark Office officials and only two practitioners on the committee. This creates a structural imbalance, giving the administrative authority majority control over professional disciplinary decisions.

Such a framework raises concerns regarding:
• Natural justice — A regulator-controlled committee risks compromising impartiality.
• Professional independence — Trademark Agents and Attorneys are qualified professionals who already operate under established ethical norms.
• Regulatory overreach — Officers of the Trademark Registry are appointed to administer statutory provisions, not to supervise or dominate the disciplinary mechanism of practitioners.

India’s broader legal ecosystem follows peer-driven disciplinary models, preserving autonomy and fairness. The proposed government-majority structure reflects an outdated, colonial approach that does not align with modern professional governance.

A balanced, independent, and representative disciplinary system is essential for maintaining the integrity of the profession while ensuring accountability.

Request: DPIIT may reconsider the composition of the Disciplinary Committee and adopt a structure that ensures neutrality, fairness, and a contemporary approach to regulating professionals.