The Impact of the Draft Trade marks (First Amendment) Rules, 2024 on the Adjudication of Phonetic and Visual Similarity Objections in India
Keywords:
Trademarks (First Amendment) Rules 2024; visual and phonetic similarity; Trade Marks Registry; India; automated similarity searchAbstract
The Draft Trade Marks (First Amendment) Rules, 2024 constitute a significant step forward in the modernization of India's Trade Marks Registry. This paper investigates the impact of proposed regulations—specifically, real-time notifications, automated similarity-search tools, electronic document service, and agent authentication—on the adjudication of phonetic and visual similarity objections, which are critical to refusal and infringement assessments under the Trademarks Act of 1999. The paper contends, based on a doctrinal analysis of the Draft Rules and a comparative review of pre-amendment case law, including Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., and Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, that while the Draft Rules are poised to improve procedural efficiency and transparency, they may inadvertently over-mechanize similarity
assessments in the absence of explicit guidance and examiner training. The article concludes with recommendations for a human-machine hybrid evaluation model, a rewritten Examination Manual, and strategies for reducing linguistic and algorithmic bias.
References
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 11(1)(b); s. 9(1)(a); s. 29(9).
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449; Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co.,
(1972) 1 SCC 618; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), “Draft Trade Marks (First
Amendment) Rules, 2024,” available at https://dpiit.gov.inAttachment.png (accessed on 9
November 2025).
For methodology: doctrinal analysis supplemented with comparative case analysis; see P.
Narayanan, Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (8th ed.).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, ss. 9, 11, 29.
Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 29(9).
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449.
Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., (1972) 1 SCC 618.
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.
See, e.g., ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA, (2010) 42 PTC 572 (Del).
On imperfect recollection doctrine, see Cadila (supra).
Trade Marks Rules, 2017; IP India notifications on e-filing. See IP India portal,
https://ipindia.gov.inAttachment.png (accessed on 9 November 2025).
Draft Rules 2024 (proposed new Rules 16A, 25A, 42(3), 56A); DPIIT press materials (April 2024).
See SpicyIP commentary, “Draft Trademark (Amendment) Rules, 2024: A Push for Digital
Transperancy,” April 2024 (accessed on 9 November 2025).
See R. Basheer & S. Reddy, “Automation in Indian Trademark Law: The Next Frontier,” NUJS
Law Review (2023).
Proposed Rule 25A (Draft Rules 2024); IP India statements on digital search tools.
Empirical benefits of automation noted in comparative jurisdictions; see EUIPO technical reports
(2022).
On multilingual phonetics challenges, see academic literature on natural language processing for
Indian languages; see Basheer & Reddy (supra).
On false positives and procedural overreach, compare commentary in SpicyIP (supra).
Proposed Rule 42(3) (Draft Rules 2024) on electronic service; see DPIIT press release (2024).
Tactical oppositions discussed in practitioner literature; see NUJS Law Review (2023).
Fee design and procedural deterrents discussed in IP policy literature.
Judicial deference and registry evidentiary value: see Cadila and subsequent High Court analyses.
On courts’ approach to registry automation evidence, see comparative discussions in EU/UK
decisions (EUIPO/UKIPO) and academic commentary.
Ibid.
Linguistic diversity and trademark phonetics: see research on transliteration and consumer
perception in India; Basheer & Reddy (2023).
Ibid.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., (2020) SCC OnLine Del 825.
Ibid.
On need for contextual explanation with algorithmic flags, see policy recommendations in Basheer
& Reddy (supra).
V Guard Industries Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd., (2023) SCC OnLine Mad
Ibid.
The literature notes that automation aids identification but not final adjudication; see EUIPO
practice documents and academic commentary.
Draft Rules 2024 text lacks doctrinal guidance; see DPIIT press release (2024).
See SpicyIP analysis (April 2024).
Algorithmic bias in NLP for Indian languages: Basheer & Reddy (2023).
Ibid.
Access-to-justice concerns in trademark oppositions discussed in practitioner literature.
See comparative policy proposals on fees and thresholds.
Explainability as a procedural fairness principle; see OECD/AI policy guidance.
Ibid.
Recommendation draws on hybrid models used by EUIPO and UKIPO; see EUIPO reports (2022).
Guidance note suggestion based on best practice in other IP offices; see UKIPO/EUIPO guidance.
Technical recommendation for multilingual datasets; see Basheer & Reddy, NUJS Law Review
(2023).
Procedural safeguard models drawn from comparative IP practice.
On evidentiary protocols for algorithmic outputs, see academic literature and EU policy documents.
Summary conclusion integrating doctrinal and procedural concerns.
