India’s Trade Marks Registry has introduced draft rules mandating applicants to disclose any use of artificial intelligence in filings and prohibiting the submission of affidavits or evidence altered or generated by AI. The guidelines seek to curb misuse of AI in trademark proceedings and improve transparency.
- Mandatory AI use disclosure in trademark filings
- Ban on AI-written affidavits and altered evidence
- Separate consultation underway on trademark squatting
What happened
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has released draft guidelines requiring anyone filing before India’s Trade Marks Registry to declare usage of artificial intelligence in their submissions. The draft also forbids the use of AI to prepare affidavits or to alter evidence such as labels, invoices, and advertisements. This requirement applies uniformly to all applicants, agents, and advocates, including those involved in pending cases.
These guidelines were drafted following a Delhi High Court order and are designed to prevent the fabrication of case law citations and other forms of AI misuse in trademark litigation. Currently not in effect, the rules will become enforceable once the office officially notifies them. The CGPDTM is also separately soliciting suggestions on guidelines aimed at addressing the broader issue of trademark squatting.
Why it matters
The introduction of mandatory AI disclosure and the prohibition on AI-generated affidavits and altered evidence represent a significant step toward ensuring the authenticity and reliability of trademark filings in India. This move addresses concerns arising from recent incidents where courts and tribunals relied on fabricated, AI-generated case law, undermining judicial credibility.
By holding filers responsible for their citations and banning AI-generated submissions, the CGPDTM hopes to safeguard trademark proceedings against manipulation and maintain fair legal processes. However, the draft guidelines currently do not tackle trademark squatting, a problematic practice where marks are registered to block legitimate brand owners, indicating ongoing regulatory gaps.
What to watch next
Stakeholders should monitor when the CGPDTM formally notifies these AI disclosure guidelines and whether any modifications will be made based on public feedback. The office’s ongoing public consultation on trademark squatting policies will also be critical, as comprehensive regulation is expected to cover both AI misuse and squatting issues together.
Additionally, the relationship between these guidelines and the not-yet-finalized Supreme Court Artificial Intelligence Regulations, 2026, bears watching. These developing frameworks will shape how AI is integrated and controlled within India’s intellectual property and judicial systems. Legal practitioners and applicants will need to adapt their filing practices accordingly.