Trademark Agent Authorisations: Kerala High Court Clarifies Stamp Duty Requirement

The Kerala High Court has recently considered an important procedural question concerning representation before the Trade Marks Registry: whether an authorisation executed in favour of a trademark agent under Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is required to be stamped as a power of attorney.

In John Vadassery v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., 2026:KER:76394, the Court held that such an authorisation is an instrument that creates a right in the authorised person to represent the applicant before the Trade Marks Registry. Consequently, the authorisation is required to be stamped under the applicable Stamp Act in the State where it is executed.  

The decision is particularly relevant for trademark applicants, trademark agents and legal practitioners who regularly file and prosecute applications before the Trade Marks Registry.

The Issue Before the Court

The petitioner, a trademark agent, challenged the practice of the Trade Marks Registry of requiring applicants represented by trademark agents to submit an authorisation stamped as a power of attorney.

The petitioner argued that Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act does not use the expression “power of attorney”. Instead, it permits an applicant to have certain acts performed before the Registrar by a person who is “duly authorised in the prescribed manner”. According to the petitioner, an ordinary authorisation in the prescribed form should therefore be sufficient, without the requirement of stamp duty.  

The Union Government, on the other hand, maintained that the authorisation enables the agent to act on behalf of the applicant, receive documents and communications and appear before the Registrar. It therefore contended that the authorisation was required to be executed with the applicable stamp duty.  

The question before the Court was consequently not merely whether a trademark agent could represent an applicant, but whether the document conferring that authority attracts stamp duty.

What Does Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act Provide?

Section 145 permits an applicant to be represented before the Registrar by an authorised person.

The provision allows acts required to be done before the Registrar, other than the making of an affidavit, to be performed by a person duly authorised in the prescribed manner. The authorised person may be a legal practitioner, a registered trademark agent or a person in the sole and regular employment of the principal. 

The manner in which this authorisation is to be given is prescribed by Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The Rule requires the authorisation to be executed in Form TM-M and provides, among other things, that service on the agent will be treated as service on the person giving the authorisation.  

The Court noted that the statutory framework therefore permits three categories of persons to act on behalf of an applicant before the Registry, provided the prescribed authorisation is submitted.

Why Stamp Duty Became the Central Question

A significant part of the Court’s reasoning concerned the distinction between procedural requirements under the Trade Marks Act and the fiscal requirements imposed under stamp legislation.

The Court observed that merely because the Trade Marks Rules prescribe the form of an authorisation does not determine whether stamp duty is payable on that document. Stamp duty is imposed under the relevant Stamp Act and concerns instruments falling within the scope of that legislation.  

The Court examined the definition of “instrument” under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, which broadly includes documents by which a right or liability is created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.

It also considered the statutory definition of “Power of Attorney”, which includes an instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.  

This distinction was central to the Court’s conclusion. The issue was not whether the Trade Marks Act expressly calls the document a “power of attorney”, but whether the legal nature and effect of the document bring it within the relevant stamp-duty provisions.

The Authorisation Gives the Agent Legal Authority to Act

The Court placed particular emphasis on the scope of authority conferred through the authorisation.

A trademark agent authorised under Section 145 and Rule 19 is not merely submitting documents on behalf of an applicant. The authorisation enables the agent to act before the Trade Marks Registry, receive notices and documents and represent the applicant in proceedings concerning the trademark. The Court observed that the agent’s acts can bind the principal and may create or affect the principal’s rights.  

Accordingly, the Court considered the authorisation to be more than a procedural formality.

It held that the authorisation prescribed under Section 145 read with Rule 19 is “certainly an instrument creating a right on a person to represent another.” Since the instrument has the characteristics of a power of attorney, it must be stamped under the applicable Stamp Act in the State where it is executed.  

Why a Vakalathnama Is Different

The Court also considered an important distinction between an authorisation filed before the Trade Marks Registry and a vakalathnama filed before a court or tribunal.

A vakalathnama, although in substance conferring authority to act on behalf of a client, may be subject to court fees under the applicable court-fee legislation. The Court noted that where such court-fee provisions apply, stamp duty may not separately be attracted.

The position is different before the Trade Marks Registry because the Registrar of Trade Marks is an officer appointed by the Central Government and is neither a court nor a tribunal. Consequently, the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act does not apply to documents presented before the Registrar.    

The Court relied, in this context, on its earlier decision concerning authorisations before taxing authorities, where it had held that such authorisations were liable to stamp duty under the applicable Stamp Act.  

What the Judgment Means for Trademark Practice

The judgment provides judicial clarity on an issue that can arise at the filing and prosecution stage of trademark matters.

For trademark applicants appointing agents to represent them before the Trade Marks Registry, the prescribed authorisation should not be viewed merely as an administrative form. The document creates legal authority for the agent to act on the applicant’s behalf and, following this judgment, attracts stamp duty under the applicable Stamp Act.

The decision also highlights an important distinction between the source of authority to act and the fiscal treatment of the document through which that authority is created. While Section 145 and Rule 19 establish the mechanism for representation before the Registry, the question of stamp duty is determined by the relevant stamp legislation.  

This is particularly relevant because stamp duty is a State subject and the applicable requirement may depend upon the State in which the instrument is executed. The respondents had specifically pointed out before the Court that stamp-duty rates vary between States.  

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in John Vadassery v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. clarifies that the authorisation submitted by a trademark agent under Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act, read with Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, is not merely a procedural authorisation.

Because the document creates a legal right in the agent to represent and act on behalf of the applicant before the Trade Marks Registry, the Court held that it has the characteristics of a power of attorney and is therefore subject to stamp duty under the applicable Stamp Act.  

The judgment therefore makes the proper execution and stamping of trademark-agent authorisations an important procedural consideration for applicants and practitioners dealing with trademark prosecution before the Registry.