In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has ordered the formulation of a code of conduct for regulating patent and trademark agents in response to rising concerns over negligence and misconduct in the field. Justice Prathiba Singh issued the directive in the case of *Saurav Chaudhary vs. Union of India & Anr*, highlighting the need for stringent guidelines to safeguard the interests of client
Saurav Chaudhary filed a patent application for a ‘Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine and Method of Blind Stitching’ on 3 August 2019, through M/s Delhi Intellectual Property LLP. His patent agent, Naveen Chaklan, failed to respond to the First Examination Report (FER) despite multiple follow-ups, leading to the abandonment of the application. Chaudhary subsequently filed a writ petition to restore his patent application.
Justice Singh underscored the critical role of patent agents in maintaining timely communication with clients and adhering to procedural requirements. She cited previous judgments, including ‘The European Union Represented by the European Commission v. Union of India & Ors.’, emphasising that courts should be lenient in cases of mistakes by patent agents, similar to their approach with legal counsel errors.
The judge stressed that while legislative timelines must be respected, exceptional cases warrant a flexible approach to prevent undue harm to applicants. She called for the issuance of a draft Code of Conduct by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & TradeMarks (CGPDTM) within two months, followed by stakeholder consultations and formal notification by 31 December 2024.
Current legislation, such as Section 130 of the Patent Act and Rule 114 of the Patent Rules, allows for the removal of patent agents for professional misconduct. However, the term ‘professional misconduct’ is not clearly defined, and existing frameworks are inadequate for addressing negligence.
Justice Singh’s judgement advocates for a structured framework similar to those governing advocates and chartered accountants. This would include clear definitions of professional misconduct, guidelines for behaviour, and a dedicated body to oversee compliance and address complaints.
A well-defined code of conduct could significantly enhance the reliability and trustworthiness of patent and trademark agents. Specific issues addressed could include:
- Non-filing of examination requests
- Failure to communicate FERs to clients
- Non-filing of replies and follow-ups
- Ignoring hearing notices
- Non-compliance with procedural timelines
However, the effectiveness of such a code depends on robust enforcement mechanisms. The CGPDTM must ensure the regulatory body is adequately empowered to investigate complaints, conduct hearings, and impose sanctions. Additionally, the dynamic nature of patent law necessitates flexible yet clear standards to adapt to varying situations.
The Delhi High Court’s mandate for a Code of Conduct for patent and trademark agents signifies a critical stride towards accountability and client protection in the intellectual property domain. As regulatory frameworks evolve, businesses can benefit from proactive compliance strategies to uphold ethical standards and mitigate risks effectively. Vakilsearch remains committed to assisting clients navigate through these regulatory developments and uphold the highest standards of professional conduct.
- Germany Bans Oneplus Smartphones Over 5G Patent Disputes - October 4, 2024
- DC and Marvel Lose Trademark Rights to ‘Superhero’ - October 4, 2024
- Ravi Ahuja Appointed as CEO of Sony Pictures - October 4, 2024
