Trademark search and clearance
Clearance is the cheapest stage of a trademark's life and the one most often skipped. In FY 2024-25 the Indian Registry closed 88,885 examined applications without registering them: refused, abandoned or withdrawn. Most of that is avoidable, and almost all of it is avoidable before a single rupee of filing fee is spent. This guide covers what the Registry's search tools actually show, how classification works, what will and will not get past examination, and the rights that no register will ever reveal.
The single most misunderstood point: India is not a pure first to file country
A great deal of published guidance says or implies that whoever files first in India wins. That is wrong, and building a clearance strategy on it is expensive. Four provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 work together to protect a business that has been using a name without registering it:
- Section 18(1) lets an application be made by a person "claiming to be the proprietor" of the mark. Filing does not by itself make you the proprietor. In Indian law, proprietorship arises principally from use.
- Section 27 is a two part rule that is usually quoted only halfway. Section 27(1) says an unregistered mark cannot found an infringement action. Section 27(2) then preserves the action for passing off in full. The accurate summary is "no infringement suit, but yes passing off", not "unregistered marks are unprotected".
- Section 34 saves the vested rights of a prior user. Continuous use from a date earlier than the registrant's own first use or registration date, whichever is earlier, means the registered proprietor cannot restrain that use, and the Registrar shall not refuse to register the prior user's own mark merely because the other one is already on the register.
- Section 11(3)(a) makes those unregistered passing off rights a ground for refusing someone else's application, and section 11(3)(b) does the same for copyright.
Registration still matters a great deal. Section 28 gives the exclusive right, and section 31(1) makes the original registration prima facie evidence of its own validity, which changes who has to prove what. But the practical consequence for clearance is blunt: a clean register search is not a clean bill of health. A prior user who never registered is invisible to every search tool described below and can still block your application, defeat your infringement suit and sue you in passing off.
So clearance has two halves. The register, and the market. The market half means trade directories, the MCA company and LLP index, domain registrations, app stores, marketplace listings, GST and FSSAI records and social handles. It is not an optional extra.
What the Registry's search tools actually are, and what they leave out
There are now three separate public search interfaces, and most published guidance describes only the oldest one.
| Tool | What it is | Practical limits |
|---|---|---|
| Legacy public search | The long standing interface at tmrsearch.ipindia.gov.in. No login. Free. | Class is a mandatory field and the page itself instructs you to enter one class at a time. A proper cross class clearance therefore means repeating the search up to 45 times. |
| New public search | The replacement interface on the same subdomain, which the legacy page now directs users towards. | It requires a login by one time password to an email address or mobile number. It is no longer the anonymous, no registration search it used to be. |
| AI and machine learning search | A separate tool on a different subdomain, described in the Registry's own Annual Report as advanced semantic and phonetic search, especially for figurative marks. | Linked from the Registry's homepage. We could not inspect its interface, so we do not describe its fields or whether it searches across classes. |
The database indexes the whole life of an application, not only live registrations. Every application on the system carries a status, and the vocabulary runs from the pending stages (new application, formalities check, marked for examination, examination report issued) through adverse outcomes (objected, ready for show cause hearing, opposed, refused, abandoned, withdrawn) to acceptance, advertisement and registration, and on to post-registration events (rectification filed, removed, cancelled). So a pending, opposed, abandoned or removed mark is retrievable, not just a registered one, and a clearance search that ignores the non-registered statuses is missing most of the risk.
What the Registry does not publish is any statement about the coverage or accuracy of that data. There is no disclaimer on the search form beyond a display-resolution note, no terms page, and nothing in the Registry's own draft practice manual addressing the public search, the e-Register or their evidentiary status. That cuts both ways: the office neither warrants the data nor disclaims it.
One more point worth making because it costs people money: Form TM-C is not a trademark availability search. Under Rule 22 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 it is a request for a search and certificate under section 45(1) of the Copyright Act 1957, certifying that no trademark identical or deceptively similar to an artistic work is on the register. It is used when registering copyright in artwork, and it costs ₹9,000 by e-filing, or ₹30,000 for the expedited version. Using the ordinary public search costs nothing.
Classification: 45 classes, and the edition changed on 1 January 2026
Goods and services are classified under the Nice Classification, published by WIPO. There are 34 classes of goods and 11 classes of services, 45 in total. Rule 20 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 requires classification "as per current edition", which is a dynamic reference: India picks up each new WIPO edition automatically without a separate Indian notification. Section 7(1) of the Act says the same thing.
The 13th edition, version 2026, came into force on 1 January 2026 and moved some goods and services between classes, so any classification advice written against the 12th edition is now out of date.
What an edition change does to a mark that is already registered
Nothing. Rule 20 operates at the point an application is classified, so it governs which edition applies to filings made from the date a new edition takes effect. It says nothing about registrations already on the register, and neither the Act nor the Rules contains any mechanism by which an existing registration is reclassified. Section 58 is a correction power the proprietor has to invoke. Section 57 is a rectification power exercisable on application. Neither is triggered by the publication of a new Nice edition. Renewal under section 25 does not reclassify either: it is a payment and continuation mechanism and does not reopen the specification. A registration therefore keeps the class and specification under which it was granted, and the Registry has published no practice statement on the point because no provision requires one.
The consequence is a mismatch rather than a risk to what you already own, and it bites in two places. A specification registered under an earlier edition may map to a different class if you file for the same goods today, which matters when you extend the range, file afresh, or designate India through the Madrid System. And a clearance search that spans an edition change has to run against both the current class and the class those goods sat in under the earlier edition, or it will miss everything filed before the move. That is the practical point on this whole topic.
On the international side, WIPO has said that the International Bureau will not reclassify the goods and services in international registrations dated before 1 January 2026. That is International Bureau practice for international registrations under the Madrid System. It does not bind the Indian office and it does not answer the national question above.
Section 18(2) permits a single application covering several classes. It is one application, but the fee is payable in respect of each class, so there is no discount for bundling. Scope costs money, and the class list is where a filing budget is actually set.
Will the mark survive examination
Objections come from two places in the Act, and they behave differently.
Section 9: absolute grounds, about the mark itself
- 9(1)(a) devoid of any distinctive character.
- 9(1)(b) consisting exclusively of indications designating kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or time of production. Note the word exclusively: a mark that merely contains a descriptive element is not caught.
- 9(1)(c) consisting exclusively of marks that have become customary in the current language or in established trade practice.
- 9(2) deceptive or confusing marks, matter likely to hurt religious susceptibilities, scandalous or obscene matter, and anything prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950.
- 9(3) shapes that result from the nature of the goods, are necessary to obtain a technical result, or give substantial value to the goods.
The escape hatch is the proviso to section 9(1): registration is not to be refused if, before the date of application, the mark had acquired a distinctive character through use, or is a well known mark. Two hard edges follow. Evidence of use has to be dated, because use after filing does not help. And the proviso sits inside section 9(1), immediately after clause (c): sub-sections (2) and (3) each open afresh and carry no proviso of their own. So evidence of use cannot save a mark that is deceptive, scandalous, hurtful to religious susceptibilities, barred by the Emblems and Names Act, or a functional or value-adding shape. No amount of reputation cures those.
Section 11: relative grounds, about other people's rights
Section 11(1) refuses a mark where identity or similarity with an earlier mark, combined with identity or similarity of goods or services, creates a likelihood of confusion, which the section says includes the likelihood of association. Section 11(2) extends protection for well known marks even across dissimilar goods. Section 11(3) brings in the unregistered rights described above. Section 11(4) allows registration where the owner of the earlier right consents, which is why coexistence and consent letters are a real tool against section 11, though they do nothing against a section 9 objection.
A framing point worth knowing. The familiar spectrum of generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary and coined marks is a useful way to think, but it is American doctrine and appears nowhere in the Trade Marks Act 1999. Indian examiners apply sections 9 and 11. Roughly: generic terms fall foul of 9(1)(c), descriptive terms of 9(1)(b) if they are exclusively descriptive, and suggestive, arbitrary and coined marks are progressively safer. Content that presents the spectrum as Indian statutory law is wrong, even where its practical advice is sound.
What can be registered as a trademark in India
Section 2(1)(zb) sets the gate: a mark capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing one trader's goods or services from another's. India has not dropped the graphical representation requirement, unlike the European Union, and that single fact decides most questions about unconventional marks. Rule 26 then sets out exactly what representations the Registry will take:
| Type of mark | What Rule 26 requires |
|---|---|
| Word, device, or a combination | The ordinary representation, not larger than 8cm by 8cm (Rule 26(1)). |
| Combination of colours | A reproduction of the mark in that combination (Rule 26(2)). |
| Three dimensional mark | A two dimensional graphic or photographic reproduction showing three different views; the Registrar may call for up to five more views, a description and a specimen (Rule 26(3)). |
| Shape of goods or packaging | At least five different views plus a word description (Rule 26(4)). |
| Sound mark | An MP3 file not exceeding thirty seconds, together with a graphical representation of the notation (Rule 26(5)). Both limbs are required. |
So the accepted set is word marks, device marks, combinations of the two, three dimensional and shape marks, colour combinations, and sound marks. Beyond that:
- Smell. There is no enabling sub-rule and no prescribed mode of representation, and the graphical representation requirement still stands, so in practice a smell mark is not registrable by any ordinary route. That said, it is no longer accurate to call it impossible: in November 2025 the Registry accepted what is reported as India's first smell mark, a rose like fragrance applied to tyres, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, with the graphical representation satisfied by an olfactory vector rather than a picture. Treat it as an exception that has not yet become a route.
- Taste. No Indian registration, no prescribed mode of representation. Unregistrable in practice.
- A single colour. This sits in an open area of Indian law, and most published guidance gets it wrong. Sections 2(1)(m) and 2(1)(zb) refer to a combination of colours and do not mention a single colour. The one reasoned Delhi High Court judgment holding that a single colour cannot be a mark was set aside on appeal in April 2019, on procedural grounds and without the point being decided, and no later Indian judgment has decided it. A single colour application is therefore neither clearly available nor clearly barred. In practice it will need strong evidence of acquired distinctiveness, and it should not be relied on as a business's primary right in a get up. Anything you read asserting that the question is settled, in either direction, is resting on that set aside decision.
Clearing the name outside the trademark register
A company or LLP name is not a trademark right
Approval of a company or LLP name by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is a clearance against the MCA's own database of company names under the Companies Act 2013. It confers nothing under the Trade Marks Act, and the two regimes actively cut against each other in both directions:
- Section 16 of the Companies Act 2013 lets the proprietor of a registered trademark apply to the Central Government, within three years of the company's incorporation or name change, to force a company whose name is identical with or too nearly resembles that mark to change it. Since the 2020 amendment the company then has three months, not the six that older guidance still quotes, and if it does not comply the Central Government allots a name itself and the Registrar issues a fresh certificate of incorporation. The company must notify the Registrar within fifteen days of the change.
- Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act makes it an infringement to use a registered mark as your trade name, as part of your trade name, or as the name of a business concern dealing in the goods or services for which the mark is registered. An MCA approved name can itself be the infringing act.
The mechanics, for completeness: reservation runs through SPICe+ Part A for a new company and RUN for a change of name of an existing one, at ₹1,000 per application, with two names proposed and one approved. A reservation for a new company lasts twenty days from approval, extendable to forty or sixty days on further fees; for an existing company changing its name it lasts sixty days.
The trademark consent point is narrower than most people assume. The incorporation rules require the trademark owner's consent where the proposed name includes a mark registered in the same class of goods or services in which the company's activity is or is proposed to be carried on. It is a same-class nexus, not resemblance in the abstract.
Domain names
A domain registration is a contractual allocation on a first come basis and confers no trademark right either. For .IN and .Bharat domains, disputes run under the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy administered by the National Internet Exchange of India. Two features there favour a complainant. The bad faith test reads registered or used in bad faith, which is disjunctive, where the international UDRP requires both. And the Indian policy adds a ground with no UDRP counterpart: registration or use for an illegal or unlawful purpose.
What clearance and filing actually cost at the Registry
Government fees only. Professional fees are separate, and we do not publish a range for those on this page.
| Item | Individual, startup or small enterprise | Everyone else |
|---|---|---|
| Public search on the Registry's own tools | Nil | Nil |
| Application, Form TM-A, e-filing, per class per mark | ₹4,500 | ₹9,000 |
| Application, Form TM-A, physical filing, per class per mark | ₹5,000 | ₹10,000 |
| Expedited processing, Form TM-M, e-filing only, per class | ₹20,000 | ₹40,000 |
| Notice of opposition, Form TM-O, e-filing, per class opposed | ₹2,700 | ₹2,700 |
| Inclusion in the list of well known trademarks, e-filing only | ₹1,00,000 | ₹1,00,000 |
Three things follow from that table. E-filing is ten per cent cheaper than physical filing across the whole schedule. The concessional rate is a straight halving, and Guide 2 explains exactly who qualifies. And because every figure is per class per mark, the classification decision described above is the filing budget.
Send an enquiry
Tell us the name you are considering and the goods or services it will be used for, and whether it is already in use. A partner replies within one business day.
This page is general information, not professional advice. Indian trademark practice, fees and classification change frequently, and how any of it applies depends on your own facts. Take professional advice before acting on anything on this page. We are happy to be that adviser, but we do not act on a web page, ours or anyone else's, without one.