Draft Guidelines Would Require an AI Declaration on Every Trade Marks Filing
The striking thing about the draft is not that it regulates AI use. It is that it would require an AI declaration on every submission, including one in which no AI was used at all. It is a draft, it is not in force, and it takes effect only when the Office notifies it.
What Was Published, and Its Status
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has published proposed Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026. The cover is marked as a draft, and clause 1.2 provides that the Guidelines take effect on notification by the Office.
The draft records that it was prepared under directions given in W.P.(C)-IPD 16/2026 by an order of the Delhi High Court dated April 16, 2026. A separate public notice of October 16, 2026 invites suggestions. Neither the draft nor the notice states a deadline for comments, and this article does not supply one.
Clause 2.2 draws the scope widely. It reaches substantially every document filed before the Registry, including affidavits, evidence, labels, invoices and sales data, at every stage of proceedings.
The Declaration Would Be Required Either Way
Clauses 5.1, 8.1 and 8.3 require a submission prepared wholly or partly with the assistance of AI to carry the declaration in Annexure I. A submission in which no AI was used would still need a declaration saying so. Clause 5.2 treats non-disclosure of AI use as a misrepresentation to the Registry.
The Annexure I wording is worth reading closely. The declarant states that due care was exercised to verify the authorities cited, confirms that the citations relate to existing legal authorities, and accepts responsibility for AI-sourced content checked under the Guidelines. It is a verification undertaking rather than a disclosure of tooling.
Who Would Sign It
Under clauses 8.1 and 8.4 an authorised representative files the declaration with the submission, and where a representative files, that representative also signs to confirm the verification. Annexure I extends to a party appearing in person.
That allocation matters more than it looks. The signature attaches to the verification rather than to the drafting, so a representative who filed work prepared by somebody else would be certifying checks that the representative has to have carried out.
The Verification Standard
Clause 6 sets the standard. Citations, statutory provisions and legal propositions contributed by AI must be checked against authorised non-AI legal sources before filing, and factual assertions must be checked against the underlying record or personal knowledge. Clause 9 then prescribes a case by case check before an AI-suggested authority may be relied on.
Clause 7.2 characterises a false citation as a serious breach of candour, which is the register the draft is written in throughout. It treats the problem as one of candour to the tribunal rather than as a technology question.
What AI Could Not Be Used For
Clause 14.1 would bar AI from generating or altering the substance of affidavits, declarations, verifications, undertakings or statements meant to reflect personal knowledge or belief. Clause 14.2 would bar its use to fabricate or materially manipulate supporting material, naming documents, images, invoices, sales data and proof of use. Clause 14.3 makes such material liable to exclusion and the responsible person liable to action.
The affidavit limb is the sharper of the two. An affidavit is a statement of what a person knows, so a document generated for them is not a shorter route to the same thing: it is a different thing.
Enforcement Would Rest on an Existing Power
Clause 14.4 provides that, acting under section 127 of the Act and after a hearing with written reasons, the Registrar may demand the original or native file, require metadata, audit trails or server logs, reject or strike off unreliable material, draw adverse inferences and make further orders.
Section 127 is in force and already supplies most of that. Clause (a) gives the Registrar all the powers of a civil court for receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. So the evidentiary part of the draft is less a new power than a statement of how an existing one will be used.
Consequences, and One Thing the Clause Does Not Reach
Clause 12 sets out the route. On a suspected false citation, a missing or false declaration or fabricated AI-generated facts, the Registrar may act after a show-cause notice, and clause 12.3 provides two remedies: disregarding or striking off the offending citation, or striking off the whole submission. Clause 12.4 permits referral of trade mark agents for disciplinary action and of advocates to the relevant Bar Council. Clause 13 and Annexure II let anyone report a suspected fabricated citation or false declaration, and clause 13.7 provides that verification does not stay the proceedings unless the Registrar directs otherwise.
Both remedies in clause 12.3 operate on a citation or on a submission. Where the only breach is the absence of a declaration and every citation and fact in the filing is sound, neither remedy obviously fits, and the clause as drafted does not say what follows.
It Would Apply to the Registry as Well
Clause 11.1 requires any AI use within the Registry to remain strictly ancillary to official functions and not to substitute for or influence independent statutory decision-making. Clause 11.2 provides that officers may not rely on AI-generated propositions or precedents unless independently verified from non-AI sources, and clause 11.3 lets the Controller General prescribe further safeguards, approved systems and protocols.
Applying the verification duty to the decision-maker as well as to the filer is the part most likely to matter in practice, because the same defect in an order is harder to correct than in a filing.
Key Takeaways
It is a draft: Proposed Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026, taking effect on notification under clause 1.2, with no comment deadline stated.
It came out of a court direction: Prepared under directions in W.P.(C)-IPD 16/2026 by an order of April 16, 2026, with a separate public notice of October 16, 2026 inviting suggestions.
A declaration on every filing: Required whether or not AI was used, with non-disclosure treated as a misrepresentation under clause 5.2.
The declaration is about verification: Annexure I has the declarant confirm due care in verifying the authorities and that the citations relate to existing legal authorities.
The signature follows the filing, not the drafting: A representative who files also signs to confirm the verification.
Affidavits are carved out of AI use entirely: Clause 14.1 covers the substance of affidavits, declarations, verifications, undertakings and statements of personal knowledge or belief.
Enforcement leans on section 127: The native file, metadata, audit trails and server logs, adverse inferences and strike-off, after a hearing with written reasons.
The Registry is inside the duty too: Officers may not rely on AI-generated propositions or precedents without independent verification from non-AI sources.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: Powers of Registrar. In all proceedings under the Act before the Registrar, clause (a) confers all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. Clause (b) permits such orders as to costs as the Registrar considers reasonable, subject to the rules made in that behalf, executable as a decree of a civil court, with a proviso excluding costs on an appeal against a certification trade mark proprietor's refusal. Clause (c) permits the Registrar to review his own decision on an application made in the prescribed manner.
Draft Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026: Proposed by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and taking effect on notification under clause 1.2. A draft. It proposes a declaration on every submission under clauses 5 and 8 with the form at Annexure I, a verification standard under clauses 6 and 9, a bar on AI in the substance of affidavits and in supporting material under clauses 14.1 to 14.3, evidentiary powers under clause 14.4 read with section 127, a show-cause route with two remedies and disciplinary referrals under clause 12, a reporting mechanism under clause 13 with the form at Annexure II, and a duty of independent verification on Registry officers under clause 11.
Sources and References
Trade Marks Act, 1999, section 127, and the draft Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments