Delhi High Court Directs Inquiry into Missing Trademark Files: DIPP Admits Records Lost During Registry Decentralization

A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court by an aggrieved company, Haldiram, seeking inspection of certain trademark prosecution and opposition files pertaining to its own applications and proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. In the course of the proceedings, several other parties—similarly unable to access their respective files—applied for and were granted impleadment, joining the petitioner in seeking directions from the Court.

Registry's Inability to Explain the Missing Files

Despite repeated queries from the Court, the Trade Marks Registry was unable to furnish any convincing explanation for its failure to produce the files sought for inspection. In view of this, the Court directed that an inquiry be conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), under whose administrative supervision and control the Patent, Trade Marks, Design, and Geographical Indications offices function. The DIPP, in turn, operates under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.

DIPP's Admission: Files Lost During Decentralization

Pursuant to the Court's direction, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the DIPP before the Delhi High Court. In this affidavit, the DIPP candidly admitted that a substantial number of files had gone missing during the decentralization of the Trade Marks Registry—a process under which trademark records and operations, previously centralized in Mumbai, were redistributed across the Registry's other regional offices. It appears that during the physical transfer of files from Mumbai to these other offices, a significant volume of records were misplaced and could not subsequently be traced.

FIR Filed and Reconstruction of Records

The Court was further informed that, in light of the seriousness of the matter, a First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged with the police in relation to the missing files that were the subject of the petitioner's inspection request. Additionally, the DIPP submitted that efforts would be undertaken to reconstruct the missing files by relying on existing secondary records maintained by the Trade Marks Registry, including published Trade Marks Journals and the Registry's electronic database.

Implications

This episode raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of trademark prosecution records in India and the broader risks associated with large-scale administrative restructuring of intellectual property offices without adequate safeguards for document custody and chain of records. For trademark applicants and opponents involved in proceedings whose files may have been affected, the loss of original documentation could materially impact their ability to rely on or produce evidence in ongoing or future proceedings, including oppositions, rectifications, or infringement actions where prosecution history may be relevant.

The matter also underscores the importance of applicants and their counsel maintaining independent, complete records of all filings, correspondence, and evidence submitted to the Registry, rather than relying solely on the Registry's own custody of such documents.

It remains to be seen how effectively the Registry is able to reconstruct the affected files through secondary sources such as the Trade Marks Journal and electronic database, and whether any prejudice caused to affected parties—whether applicants, opponents, or registered proprietors—will be adequately addressed by the Court in the course of further proceedings.