Summary: Rule 34 of the Indian Trade Marks Rules, 2017, offers an accelerated route for trademarks, but its scope is sometimes misunderstood. Does it fast-track only applications where requests for expedited examination have already been made, or for all stages generally?
Introduction
Delays in the trademark registration process are a major concern for brand owners. To address this, many entities apply to expedite trademark applications for reasons of commercial expediency, infringement concerns, or market uncertainty, among other things.
In India, Rule 34 of the Trademarks Rules, 2017 (2017 Rules), allows freshly-filed applications to be examined faster than usual. But the status of expedited requests for subsequent stages of trademark prosecution, i.e., after the application was filed in the normal course, is not always clear.
Statutory position
Before the 2017 Rules were enacted, expedited requests fell under Rule 38 of the Trademarks Rules, 2002 (2002 Rules), which provided that once the application number is allotted, the Applicant may request for “expedited examination of an application”, for a fee.
Under the 2017 Rules, the scope of expedited requests was arguably broadened as Rule 34(1) now provides that, once the application number is allotted, the Applicant may request for “expedited processing of an application”, for a fee. Critically, the Rule states that:
“Such an application shall be examined expeditiously and ordinarily within three months from the date of submission of the application. Thereafter, the following proceedings viz. the consideration of response to the examination report, scheduling of show cause hearing, if required, the publication of the application and the opposition thereto, if any, till final disposal of the application shall also be dealt with expeditiously subject to such guidelines as may be published in this regard by the Registrar in the trademarks Journal.”
However, the implementation of this Rule is not always consistent. Often, requests filed after examination reports have been issued, or during show cause hearings or opposition proceedings, remain undecided. But, equally, there have also been cases where expedited requests filed beyond the examination stage have been taken on record by the Trademarks Registry (the Registry).
The question, therefore, persists as to whether Rule 34 is confined only to expediting examination, or whether it can be extended to stages beyond examination.
It is also useful to note that Rule 34 is “subject to” Registry guidelines, and till date, no such guidelines have been published.
Legislative history of Rule 34
The 2017 Rules were part of a broader digitisation and simplification exercise undertaken by India’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO), to modernise procedures and reduce pendency. Rule 34 was introduced for several reasons. At the policy level, it aligned with India’s “Ease of Doing Business” push, which gained momentum in the mid-2010s, when faster file processing by regulators was seen as a mark of competitiveness. At the operational level, it sought to manage the Registry’s backlog by allowing applicants with genuine urgency to move ahead. Finally, it was also meant to mirror expedited practices already enabled in the Indian patent system.
With regard to the language of Rule 34, note that the difference between the 2002 and 2017 Rules rides on the phrase “expedited examination” having been replaced by “expedited processing. Arguably, “processing” may be interpreted to include all stages of trademark prosecution. No official documentation sheds light on the Rule’s widened scope. However, a contemporaneous press release issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, expressly stated that while the older Rules were confined only to expedited examination, now, the expedited procedure stood extended “right up to registration stage”.
Interpretation of Rule 34
The scope of Rule 34 was discussed in some detail by the Delhi office of the Registry in a trademark opposition concerning the trademark Hudson (Application no. 3544623; Order dated April 28, 2022) (the 2022 order).
In this case, the Applicant filed a request for expedited hearing, to which the Opponent vehemently objected. It said that this opposition matter was being allowed to jump the queue, even as several older opposition matters were still pending, only because of the Applicant’s expedited request under Rule 34. According to the Opponent:
- expedited requests under Rule 34 could only be filed before examination, as the term “thereafter” in Rule 34 is a condition precedent. In other words, the Rule requires that examination proceedings must first be expedited, and only thereafter, may subsequent proceedings be fast tracked.
- This was substantiated by the scheme of the Rules, which placed Rule 34 after Rule 33 dealing with the examination of applications, implying that the legislative intent was to require examination first.
- Requests for expeditious processing at any stage would amount to justice being accessible only to those who could afford higher fees and secure an earlier opportunity of hearing.
The Applicant, on the other hand, contended that “thereafter” is not a condition precedent and is merely indicative in nature. It also argued that a purposive interpretation was necessary to make Rule 34 meaningful and to meet the ends of justice.
In arriving at its decision, the Registrar considered the legislative history, intent and object of Rule 34:
- In 2015, when the 2017 Rules were still under deliberation, the number of applications stuck beyond the examination stage was double that of applications at examination.
- When the 2017 Rules came about, examination pendency had reduced, but pendency at later stages remained. In the face of such data around pendency, the legislature was entirely conscious of post-examination delays, and Rule 34 was intended as a mechanism for applications that were pending for a long time.
- Therefore, the Opponent’s interpretation that expedited requests must necessarily be filed before examination would defeat the purposive interpretation of Rule 34.
The Registrar also noted that Rule 34 provides that the receipt of the official number of the trademark application is the only condition precedent for filing an expedited request. Thus, the interpretation accorded by the Opponent to the term “thereafter” as a condition precedent stood rejected.
Accordingly, the Registrar held that Rule 34 is applicable to every stage of the trademark application and can be invoked for expeditious processing at any stage till final disposal.
More recently, although in a different factual context, the Madras High Court, in its judgement in Ace Foods Private Limited vs. The Registrar of Trademarks, CMA(TM) No. 22 of 2025 (Order dated 10.2.2026), did not interfere with the Registry entertaining a request for expeditious hearing filed by the Applicant on record.
In the general course of practice, concerns remain as to the equity and equitability of such requests, as expedition is only upon payment of an additional fee. There are also concerns that, with only applicants being permitted to file for expedited requests, especially in opposition proceedings, it would imply that applicants are placed on a higher pedestal, whereas opponents have no similar facility to request for expeditious disposal of oppositions.
Key takeaways
The 2022 order of the Registry held that Rule 34 is applicable to every stage of the trademark application and can be invoked for expeditious processing at any stage till final disposal. However, one must be mindful that the order was issued by the Delhi office. Thus, it may at best have some persuasive value in aiding interpretation of Rule 34, but the order itself is not binding on other Registry offices. Therefore, how such requests will be entertained elsewhere (outside the Delhi office) might depend on local practice and interpretation.
Pending a clear judicial precedent or administrative guidelines in this regard, therefore, the applicability of Rule 34 unequivocally across all stages of trademark prosecution remains uncertain.
For trademark applicants, the general advice remains that expedited requests be filed immediately after filing the application itself. This reduces the odds of an ambiguous interpretation of Rule 34 hindering the application’s progress in the system. However, if an expedited request has not been filed for examination, there is a risk that expedited processing requests filed at later stages may not always be entertained.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese