INTRODUCTION

On August 7, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur delivered a key judgment in the case of Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trademarks & Hassnar Health and Personal Care. The case highlighted a major issue in India’s intellectual property system: long delays in trademark registration. Here, the petitioner’s application had been waiting for over 15 years, even though the law sets a deadline for decisions. The court ruled that these delays broke both the Trademark Rules, 2017, and the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court also told the Registrar of Trademarks to take action to reduce the backlog more quickly.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The events unfolded gradually over a considerable span of time. On 25 June 2010, Mrs. Nirmala Kabra, operating under the name M/s Action (India) Pharmaceuticals Division, submitted an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking registration of the mark "Breakstone." Nearly three years later, on 7 March 2013, the application encountered opposition from Respondent No. 2, Hassnar Health and Personal Care, which filed a formal notice contesting the registration. The proceedings continued in the usual manner and, after the completion of pleadings, the matter was scheduled for the recording of evidence on 25 July 2017. This timeline reflects the protracted nature of trademark disputes, which often involve multiple stages and extended periods for resolution.

However, despite the matter being listed for the recording of evidence, no substantial progress occurred thereafter. For the next eight years, the proceedings remained virtually stagnant at the evidence stage, with neither party able to move the matter forward or bring it to a conclusion. By 2025, more than fifteen years had passed since the original application was filed, with the dispute still unresolved. This prolonged and inordinate delay, with no decision in sight and no clear indication of when the process would conclude, ultimately compelled Mrs. Kabra to seek judicial intervention. In 2022, she approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide her application within a fixed time frame. Since this was a writ petition, there were no lower court judgments or precedents to consider; the challenge was directed squarely at the continued inaction of the Registrar, highlighting the issue of administrative delay and the need for timely adjudication in such matters.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR

The petitioner expressed that the delay of over fifteen years was not justified and went against the established guidelines. She pointed out Rule 50 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, which provides a clear process to follow once evidence is submitted. This rule states that the registrar should set a hearing date with one month’s notice to the involved parties, limit adjournments to no more than two, and ultimately issue a reasoned written order. Unfortunately, none of these procedures was followed in her case. Additionally, the petitioner noted that the lack of action from the registrar had caused her serious issues, leaving her business interests and legal rights in limbo for over a decade and a half. She highlighted the saying, "justice delayed is justice denied," stressing that in her situation, the delay felt like a denial of justice. As a result, she kindly requested that the registrar adjudicate her trademark application promptly within a set timeframe.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The registrar of trademarks filed an opposition to the petition but was unable to challenge the factual claims made by the petitioner. The counsel did acknowledge that there was a substantial backlog of trademark applications, which helped explain the delays in addressing various cases. However, despite this admission, there was no valid justification or detailed explanation provided regarding why the petitioner’s application had been left undecided for more than fifteen years. This prolonged waiting period raises concerns about the efficiency of the process and the impact on applicants awaiting resolution.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

COURT’S DECISION

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recently issued a powerful judgment that highlighted the registrar's concerning delay in processing an application. The court found the delay to be “shocking and surprising,” emphasizing that this inaction violated statutory rules, constitutional guarantees, and the principles of natural justice.

In his judgment, Justice Dhand referenced the legal framework outlined in Rule 50 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017, which is designed to ensure that applications are heard and resolved promptly. He pointed out that the registrar does not have the authority to keep cases pending indefinitely once all necessary pleadings and evidence have been submitted. Consequently, the long wait for the petitioner’s application was deemed a clear violation of this important rule.

The court highlighted the broader consequences of delays in the trademark application process. It pointed out that extended inaction can defeat the main goal of submitting trademark applications. This not only leads to extra costs for those involved but also raises the risk of losing important evidence. Furthermore, such delays can significantly diminish public trust in the intellectual property system. The court emphasized that these setbacks not only affect individual applicants but also harm the overall reliability of the trademark registration process.

The inclusion of trademark applications under Article 21 is based on the judiciary's evolving interpretation of "life and personal liberty". The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted Article 21 since the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case to include rights necessary for a dignified life. The right to a speedy trial was established as part of Article 21 in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992), which found that unjust or unreasonably delayed procedures violate Article 21. The court connected timely IP registration to an applicant's livelihood and dignity, seeing it as crucial for commercial viability and growth.

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

The court highlighted the importance of natural justice in this case, reminding us that “justice delayed is justice denied.” This was especially true here, as the petitioner had been stuck in a state of legal uncertainty for over fifteen years. The court ultimately decided that this significant delay equated to a denial of justice. It's a powerful reminder of how essential timely resolution is in legal matters!

The court has taken steps to provide relief with some important instructions. It has asked the registrar of Trade Marks to quickly handle all pending applications according to Rule 50 of the 2017 Rules. Specifically, the court has requested that Mrs. Kabra’s application for the mark “Breastone” be resolved within three months after it receives a certified copy of the order. Additionally, the court encouraged the registrar to come up with a comprehensive plan to address the backlog and develop a swift and efficient process for handling intellectual property matters.

CONCLUSION

The recent judgment in the case of Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks serves as an important reminder that bureaucratic delays should never compromise our legal rights. The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the significance of following Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, while also highlighting the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

This decision is a breath of fresh air for applicants, assuring them that they won't be stuck in limbo for years. It's also a clear message to the registrar that too much time without action is simply unacceptable. By reinforcing the notion that delayed justice is still a form of denied justice, the court has stressed how crucial timely protection of intellectual property is—not just as a legal formality, but as a fundamental part of building trust in business and driving economic growth.

This case goes beyond simply registering the trademark “Breastone.” It’s about reinforcing the credibility of India’s intellectual property system. The Rajasthan High Court has made an important statement by emphasizing that both efficiency and fairness are crucial components of justice. By doing so, they’ve highlighted that intellectual property rights are key business rights that deserve timely recognition and protection. This is a significant step towards ensuring a fairer and more reliable system for everyone involved.