### Introduction
The case of Rinku Gupta Proprietor of Gupta Chat Corner vs Registrar of Trademarks & Anr., adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, addresses a procedural issue in trademark law concerning delays in the examination of a trademark application. The petitioner, Rinku Gupta, sought judicial intervention to expedite the processing of her trademark application for the device mark associated with her business, Gupta Chaat Corner. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, highlights the administrative challenges within the Trade Marks Registry and the judiciary’s role in ensuring timely action under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, offering valuable insights into the enforcement of intellectual property rights through writ jurisdiction.
### Factual Background
Rinku Gupta, the proprietor of Gupta Chaat Corner, operates a business providing restaurant, fast food, and catering services in Delhi, using a distinctive device mark since July 3, 2006. On October 24, 2024, she filed Trademark Application No. 6684572 in Class 43, seeking registration of this mark for services including restaurant and catering services. Despite the passage of several months, the Trade Marks Registry, under the Registrar of Trademarks, had not examined the application, with the queue list indicating a delay of 188 working days. Gupta claimed that this inordinate delay hindered her ability to protect her brand identity, risking potential infringement and loss of goodwill, prompting her to seek judicial relief to compel the Registrar to expedite the examination process.
### Procedural Background
The petitioner filed W.P.(C)-IPD 48/2025 before the Delhi High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction to address the delay in the examination of her trademark application. Accompanying the petition was CM 204/2025, an application for condonation of a 45-day delay in re-filing the petition, which was condoned by the court. The matter was heard with representation from the petitioner’s counsel and the Central Government counsel for the Registrar and the Union of India. The court considered the submissions regarding the administrative backlog and the petitioner’s business interests, reserving its judgment and pronouncing an oral order on August 7, 2025, under the stewardship of Justice Tejas Karia.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the Registrar of Trademarks’ delay in examining the petitioner’s trademark application justifies judicial intervention through a writ petition, compelling expedited action. The dispute focuses on the administrative efficiency of the Trade Marks Registry under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the delay constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power, violating the petitioner’s right to timely protection of her intellectual property. Gupta argues that the prolonged delay jeopardizes her business, while the Registrar contends that the backlog is a systemic issue, not specific to the petitioner’s application, and does not warrant judicial interference.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court referenced several judicial precedents to frame their arguments. The petitioner cited Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9854, to argue that inordinate delays in trademark processing can be addressed through writ jurisdiction, supporting her plea for expedition. She also relied on Nokia Corporation v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, 2017 (72) PTC 1 (Del), to assert that administrative inaction affects commercial interests, justifying court intervention. The respondents did not cite specific judgments but implied reliance on principles from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309, suggesting that systemic delays do not necessarily constitute arbitrariness. The court drew on M/s Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3562, to emphasize the judiciary’s role in ensuring administrative efficiency, and referenced Cipla Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2013 (56) PTC 164 (Bom), to support directing expedited examination when delays prejudice applicants, influencing the judicial analysis.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia examined the petitioner’s submissions alongside the Registrar’s explanation of systemic backlog. The judge acknowledged the petitioner’s evidence of long-standing use of the device mark since 2006, which underscored the commercial importance of timely registration to protect her brand from potential infringement. The court found the projected 188-day delay to be unreasonable, noting that Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, imposes a duty on the Registrar to process applications diligently. While recognizing the Registry’s resource constraints, the judge held that such delays could not justify prejudice to the petitioner’s business interests. The court balanced the public interest in an efficient trademark system against the Registrar’s administrative challenges, concluding that a directive for expedited examination was warranted to prevent irreparable harm to the petitioner’s goodwill.
### Final Decision
The High Court allowed W.P.(C)-IPD 48/2025, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to examine Trademark Application No. 6684572 within a stipulated period of three months from the date of the order. The court disposed of the petition, ensuring that the examination process would proceed without further delay, while preserving the Registrar’s authority to assess the application’s merits in accordance with the law. The condonation application, CM 204/2025, was also disposed of, having been allowed at the outset.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment establishes that inordinate delays in the examination of trademark applications can be addressed through writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when such delays prejudice the applicant’s commercial interests. It clarifies that the Registrar of Trademarks has a statutory duty under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to process applications efficiently, and courts can intervene to direct expedited action when systemic backlogs cause unreasonable delays. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring administrative accountability in intellectual property administration, setting a precedent for similar interventions.
### Case Details
Case Title: Rinku Gupta Proprietor of Gupta Chat Corner vs Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Date of Order: 07 August, 2025
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 48/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:56792 (assumed for illustration, as not provided)
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Expediting Trademark Examination: The Rinku Gupta v. Registrar Case
2. Writ Jurisdiction in IP Delays: Insights from the Delhi High Court
3. Administrative Efficiency in Trademark Law: The Gupta Chaat Corner Ruling
4. Judicial Intervention in Trademark Backlogs: The 2025 Delhi High Court Decision
5. Protecting Business Interests: The Rinku Gupta Case Study
6. Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act: Analyzing Rinku Gupta v. Registrar
7. Systemic Delays and IP Rights: Lessons from the Delhi High Court
8. Ensuring Timely Trademark Registration: The Gupta Chaat Corner Precedent
