Trademark prosecution trends in India: How examiners are approaching objections in 2026

Introduction

In the past few years, trademark law in India has seen considerable transformations due to the advancements in technology, increase in online business, and globalization. The current status of trademark registration in India is such that it has become more evidence-intensive and technology-oriented. Also, Indian Trade Marks Registry applies a stricter examination process while evaluating trademark applications which is inline with India's efforts towards building up its intellectual property protection system and adapting to the global legal requirements.

There are various factors which have affected trademark management in India. The enactment of the Trade Mark Rules of 2017 facilitated faster registration; however, there is an increase in the examination process as well. Further, there have been judicial pronouncements on trademark law and how certain factors can be considered while distinguishing between different trademarks. In addition, the popularity of shopping as well as social media platforms have altered the application and management of trademarks in India. In this regard, the trademark examiner does not only consider the similarity of trademarks but also considers the perspective of consumer behavior in case of confusion caused by the two brands online. There are stricter rules for applications for descriptive as well as generic trademarks and the applicant must provide a lot of documents to prove the distinctness of the brand name.

Examination Standards and Absolute Grounds Objections

Another trend with regard to trademark prosecution in 2026 is the cautious scrutiny by the examiners while considering the distinctiveness of the trademarks. In particular, there will be a careful assessment of trademarks considered to be descriptive or generic. The Registry will interpret the laws on trademark protection strictly, particularly in those industries that may attempt to utilize trademarks which are consumer-friendly and appealing. In this case, an individual applying for registration of the trademark shall be required to submit evidence such as dictionaries, industry references and even consumer surveys in order to establish an association between the trademark and the company’s goods or services.

Additionally, examiners will take into consideration any trademarks which might violate the public policy and/or morality laws. In particular, such considerations will include the possible deception associated with the trademark as well as the morality, welfare and other issues, particularly in industries such as healthcare and consumer services. The stricter interpretation by the Registry is meant to address the problem of monopoly of common expressions and the need for the trademark to serve identification purposes.

Relative Grounds Examination and Digital Considerations

Examining practices when considering relative ground objections have also evolved, with trademark examiners no longer simply comparing marks but rather evaluating them in terms of potential consumer confusion in the real world and in an online context. It has been determined that the likelihood of confusion is to be considered in the eyes of a consumer that does not possess a photographic memory. As such, examiners evaluate trademarks based on use in the commercial sphere rather than visual or phonetic similarity alone.

Protecting the interests of known trademarks has also been improved, with the process requiring companies to provide evidence in regards to the level of recognition and advertising spend as well as the results of market surveys. The Registry features a database containing information on known trademarks, which makes for easier conflict identification by examiners.

An additional trend that has come into play is that of similarity, where two trademarks are dissimilar yet may still cause confusion due to creating a commercial impression. This trend applies specifically to marketing, where consumer associations rely heavily on perceptions.

Digital Trademark Infringement and Its Impact on Examination Practices

The increase in shopping has brought changes in the process of trademark examination in India. The examiner must consider digital disputes when examining the application for a trademark. Consideration is done by considering issues such as domain name dispute, sponsorship, keyword dispute, handle dispute, and consumer confusion on the internet. For instance, the examiner may use the internet to search for conflicts between an application and an existing mark. The examiner will also consider the existence of companies that have trademark applications in place. This indicates that the Registrar acknowledges trademark infringement through digital means, and not through the physical marketplace. 

An important judicial precedent in 2025 contributed to this practice. It was decided in Delhi that Amazon Technologies would have to pay for damages for the infringement of the trademark "Beverly Hills Polo Club". Infringement was found to be large scale and involved digital misrepresentation. As a result, examiners are becoming more cautious when examining applications for potential associations with domain-enabled fraud, counterfeit marketplace behavior, or deceptive web site branding practices. Furthermore, examiners are becoming aware of repeat infringement trends, deceptive web sites, and trademarks that have been used incorrectly on-line.

Legal opinions issued in litigation surrounding the issue of keyword advertising are also encouraging examiners to take a more nuanced approach when assessing digital trademark infringement cases. Courts have noted that merely using certain keywords in an ad may not constitute infringement, but it could lead to consumer confusion. Thus, digital evidence plays a more important role in prosecuting infringement claims. Website analysis, online advertisement information, social networking metrics, and digital consumer opinion polls are all common forms of digital evidence in trademark law.

Common Objection Categories and Response Strategies

The issues related to non-distinctiveness, descriptiveness and issues on public interest in trademark prosecution for the year 2026 remain identical. However, to meet these challenges companies must present substantial information rather than arguments. As an example, in order to prove acquired distinctiveness, companies will have to present their sales data, marketing expenses, survey reports and even statistics obtained from social media analytics. Furthermore, in cases where objections are related to similarity between two trademark names, companies must perform a thorough comparison analysis. Legal arguments supported by judicial decisions and market evidence are expected.

The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 made trademark prosecution much easier while making the substance of examination tougher. Hence, companies are hiring trademark experts at a very early stage in the process.

Judicial Influence on Examination Practices

The rulings made by the court still affect how trademarks are analyzed in India. Rulings from the courts have motivated examiners to apply an evidential and contextual approach. Objections based on the likelihood of confusion and not on assumptions were urged. Objections raised concerning keyword advertising by the Supreme Court of India have played a significant role in the method used by the registry during the examination process. Protection of trademarks that are well known in the market has increased the significance of evidence of a well-established reputation and success in litigation.

While this is happening, there has been a willingness on the side of courts to issue interim orders including injunctions and anti-counterfeiting orders. This has motivated examiners to consider scrutiny at the prosecution stage to avoid infringement disputes.

Another critical move has been the concern by the Delhi High Court regarding the misleading nature of advertising and unethical conduct by trademark agents who promise quick approval. All in all, the trademark prosecution scenario in India is changing. The examiners are now becoming stricter. The companies must become more prepared and strategic. What matters at this point is proving how a mark affects consumer perception in reality.

In its ruling, Justice Pratibha M. Singh ordered the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to create a code of conduct for the trademark and patent agents. As per the order of the Court, whenever there are professionals making assertions, they damage public credibility, and exploit those who lack knowledge of IP laws. These will definitely improve the accountability of trademark agents.

Procedural Reforms and Timeline Management

The reforms introduced to the Trade Marks Rules in 2017 continue to impact trademark cases up to 2026. The introduction of filing systems and other automated processes allows us to track the status of applications and conduct an examination of applications using software and automated systems. These changes increased efficiency in examining trademark applications and now trademark examiners can conduct comprehensive searches for existing trademarks via computer systems.

As a result of these reforms, the system has become stricter. It is essential to comply with all requirements in order to obtain a trademark. Now a person has to respond to an objection raised by a trademark examiner in 30 to 60 days. Otherwise, one's trademark application will likely get rejected.

The Registry employs a particular format of objections, thus making the procedure more structured. Nevertheless, if one's reply is insufficient or an applicant makes a mistake in his/her responses, then his/her application will get rejected. Overall, it becomes evident that today obtaining a trademark involves a certain approach and a specific strategy. Applicants must be well-prepared before submitting their trademark application forms.

Non-Traditional Trademarks and Emerging Categories

It is necessary to state that in India, the regulations regarding the registration of trademarks have been changed. In particular, the following types of trademarks have become protectable: traditional trademarks (sound, shape, combination of colours, and motion). 

The aforementioned kinds of trademarks should be noted. These types differ from others. Sometimes, such trademarks cannot be easily examined. Moreover, such trademarks usually cannot be distinguished; therefore, the examiners should use standards while assessing those trademarks. Those people applying for trademark registration must provide enough evidence in order to prove the reputation of the trademark in question. This includes reports provided by experts, advertisements, etc.

Therefore, it is possible to assume that the registration of the aforementioned -trademarks reflects the modern tendencies in India; furthermore, they are in compliance with the international regulations concerning the issue. Regarding this issue, it may be stated that the procedure of the trademark registration in India in 2026 is developed and corresponds to the international standards. Thus, in particular, there are stricter standards of examining trademark applications. Especially in regards to Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The current trademark examiners take into consideration the degree of similarity to other trademarks, their application online, as well as consumer perception. The advent of e-commerce and social media, as well as online advertisement, brought a change to the use and examination of trademarks. As courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, are playing an active role in forming the new rules for the examination of trademark applications by ensuring intellectual property rights protection and focusing on the need for evidence, it must be said that the amendments to the Trade Marks Rules of 2017, which updated the registration process, have modernized trademark examinations.

It is also evident from the recognition of non-traditional trademarks and the increasing attention to trademark infringement that the laws regarding trademarks in India are adapting to modern times and challenges that businesses face. Practitioners should apply a strategy in applying for trademark registration based on thorough investigation and evidence.

Thus, it is safe to say that trademark registration in India is far from being a mechanical process. Rather, it is a complex legal and business one that needs to be approached carefully.

Recent Developments

• 25/02/2025: Damages amounting to INR 339 crores were awarded against Amazon Technologies by the Delhi High Court for trademark infringement concerning the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' mark, which the Court referred to as a "new species of infringement" . The judgment expanded judicial consideration of trademark infringement occurring through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces.. This landmark ruling has had an immediate impact on how trademarks are examined. The acknowledgment by the Court that any case involving infringement is to be assessed in view of continuing harm and public interest has increased the examiner's caution against repeat infringers.

• 12/2025: Top intellectual property developments in India in 2025 point to major advances in e-infringement jurisprudence and in the interpretation of homonymous geographical indication (GI) treatment under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act. Recent GI jurisprudence has reaffirmed that geographical indication rights are governed by the statutory framework of the GI Act and should not be conflated with trademark doctrines such as prior adoption or passing off. Such doctrinal developments have impacted the method by which applications containing geographical indications are examined, where examiners adopt stringent statutory interpretations of the law.

• 2025: Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, introduced by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, introduced a new adjudicatory mechanism for penalties and enforcement. While dealing specifically with the patent law, such developments represent an improvement in the overall IPR framework, including other areas of India's intellectual property regime, for example, in the area of trademark law. These improvements in adjudication processes have an effect on trademark prosecution practices, with examiners applying rigorous evidential standards in the review of applications.

Conclusion

In summary, trademarks prosecution in India has grown to become a more complex and sophisticated procedure as a result of technological developments, judicial precedents, and new global trends. Trademark examiners now analyze trademarks on the basis of visual, phonetic, digital use, and public perceptions. The continuous recognition of non-traditional trademarks and increased need for evidence are indications that the trademarks prosecution procedure is undergoing changes to keep up with technological trends.

Trademark prosecution procedures have therefore become a highly professional and well-evidenced undertaking that involves strategy development and legal knowledge. It is evident that the trademarks protection procedure has become increasingly complex over time. The above developments are important since trademarks are becoming an essential part of businesses in modern society.

Author: Os Dubey, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes

1. Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47 of 1999, Government of India, particularly Sections 9 and 11 relating to absolute and relative grounds for refusal of registration.

2. Trade Marks Rules, 2017, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, notified vide G.S.R. 501(E), 6 March 2017.

3. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73. The Supreme Court emphasized that likelihood of confusion must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

4. Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors., CS (COMM) 564/2020, judgment dated 25 February 2025, Delhi High Court. The Court awarded damages of approximately ₹339 crore in the dispute concerning the Beverly Hills Polo Club mark and examined infringement occurring through e-commerce channels.

5. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), List of Well-Known Trademarks maintained under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, available on the Intellectual Property India portal.

6. Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 9178–9180 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 28 January 2025. The Court examined trademark implications of keyword advertising and clarified that use of trademarks as keywords does not automatically constitute infringement and requires a fact-specific assessment of consumer confusion.

7. The Chartered Institute of Taxation (India) v. Shri Raj Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 282/2024, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 18 February 2025. Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the CGPDTM to formulate a Code of Conduct for patent and trademark agents to address misleading representations regarding registration and prosecution services.

8. Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, notified vide G.S.R. 721(E), 21 November 2025, introducing a framework for adjudication of penalties and appeals under the amended Patents Act and reflecting broader institutional reforms in India's intellectual property administration.