The CGPDTM has released draft rules requiring mandatory disclosure of artificial intelligence use in trademark submissions. MediaNama reported that the office, which oversees patents and designs, published these guidelines to prevent fabricated case law. The new framework applies to all applicants, agents, and advocates appearing before the registry, including those in pending cases. The rules are not yet active and will take effect only after formal notification by the authority.
According to MediaNama, the draft imposes strict limits on machine-generated content. It prohibits AI from altering the substance of sworn statements like affidavits. It also restricts the use of algorithms to manipulate supporting materials such as invoices, labels, or advertisements. If the registrar suspects digital alteration, they can demand the original native file and its metadata. Any AI-suggested citations or facts must be independently cross-checked against official sources like court websites or the Official Gazette to be considered valid.
These measures follow a public notice dated October 16, in which the CGPDTM invited suggestions on addressing AI misuse and trademark squatting. MediaNama noted that this notice followed an October 13 order by the Delhi High Court in the Stryten Energy case, which called for comprehensive guidelines. The draft was prepared based on a prior April 16, 2026 order in the same dispute. Penalties for non-compliance include striking off false citations or entire submissions, with agents potentially referred to disciplinary committees and advocates to their respective Bar Councils.
Despite these new rules, the draft does not fully address trademark squatting, which involves registering a mark used by another party to block the brand owner. The public notice mentions both AI and squatting, but the current guidelines focus primarily on AI. MediaNama observed that the draft mentions examiners and registrars keeping AI strictly ancillary, but penalties currently apply only to parties and their representatives. The office has also sent questions to the CGPDTM regarding the definition of AI tools and whether grammar checkers require declaration, awaiting a response to clarify these ambiguities.