India's Draft Rules on AI in Trademark Filings: Every Reply Would Carry an AI Declaration

India's Trade Marks Registry has proposed draft guidelines under which every filing, including replies to examination reports and opposition papers, would carry a signed declaration saying whether AI was used to prepare it. Where AI was used, the person signing would also certify that every case citation and legal proposition was checked against recognised Indian legal sources, and a fake citation could get the filing struck off and the agent referred for disciplinary action. The draft was published by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) with a public notice dated October 16, 2026, on the directions of the Delhi High Court. It is not in force yet. If you file in India or plan to, the declaration would become part of every step after the application, and your Indian trademark registration would be handled under it from the day it is notified.

Verified on November 4, 2026 against the CGPDTM's public notice No. CG/F/CGPDTM/DL-10/4908, the 23-page draft guidelines, the Delhi High Court orders of April 16 and October 13, 2026 in W.P.(C)-IPD 16/2026, and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Clause numbers refer to the draft. This is a proposal open for comment and may change before it is notified.

What the draft would require

The document is titled "Guidelines on Use of Artificial Intelligence in Proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, 2026". Its core obligations are five:

1. A declaration with every submission (clause 8.3). Each submission would be accompanied by a single declaration, in the form of Annexure I, "stating whether or not the submission has been prepared with the assistance of an AI". If no AI was used, saying so is enough.
2. Verification of anything AI produced (clauses 6 and 9). Every case citation, statutory provision and legal proposition contributed by AI must be checked against "Authorised and Recognised Non-AI Legal Sources" before filing, and every factual statement against the underlying record.
3. Personal responsibility (clauses 4.2 and 8.2). No one may blame an error on the AI. The declarant accepts "full personal responsibility" for the accuracy of the filing.
4. Two signatures when an agent files (clause 8.4). The declaration is signed by the person filing and, when an authorised representative is involved, also by that representative, who certifies that the verification was done.
5. No AI in affidavits or evidence (clause 14). AI may not be used to write or alter the substantive content of an affidavit or declaration, or to "generate, fabricate, materially manipulate, or digitally alter" evidence such as images, labels, invoices, translations or proof of use.

Under clause 1.2 the guidelines would take effect "with immediate effect upon their notification" and apply to proceedings already pending, not only to new ones. The public notice says the same: they "shall be implemented for all pending applications and the new applications received by the office".

How it got here: the key dates

Date	What happened	Source
April 16, 2026	In a writ petition by Stryten Energy LLC, the Delhi High Court notes that the main relief sought is guidelines to check AI-generated pleadings that, according to the petitioner, cited false and fake cases before the Registrar. The Registry's counsel undertakes to file draft guidelines. The petition also asked for guidelines on "malicious squatting" of globally known marks.	Delhi High Court order
October 13, 2026	The court finds that comprehensive guidelines are needed on the use and misuse of AI "and also menace of squatting", and directs the CGPDTM to invite comments within 3 weeks and propose guidelines within 3 more weeks.	Delhi High Court order
October 16, 2026	The CGPDTM issues the public notice and publishes the draft AI guidelines (listed on IP India on October 17).	Public notice, draft
About November 6-7, 2026	Comments close. The notice says "three (3) weeks from the date of publication" without a calendar date; the range is our own count from October 16 or 17.	Public notice, para. 2
3 weeks after comments close	The CGPDTM compiles the comments and suggests final guidelines to the court.	Order of October 13, para. 3
December 14, 2026	The case is listed again before the Delhi High Court.	Order of October 13, para. 4

Which filings would need the declaration, and what happens if it is missing

Clause 8.3 speaks of "every submission". Clause 10.1 then lists the filings it has in mind:

Filing (clause 10.1)	Typical moment for a brand owner
Any reply or communication in response to an examination report or show cause notice	After the Registry examines your application and raises objections
Counter-statements and replies in opposition proceedings, and interlocutory applications	When a third party opposes your published mark
Written submissions and synopses at any hearing before the Registrar	Show cause hearings and opposition hearings
Affidavits by way of evidence, to the extent they or their exhibits contain AI-generated content	Evidence of use or reputation in an opposition
Applications for rectification, cancellation or removal of a mark	When you attack a copycat registration
Any other document whose substantive legal content was prepared with AI	Anything else filed with the Registry

The consequences sit in clauses 12 and 14:

Problem	What the Registrar could do
A false or non-existent case citation, whether or not AI produced it (12.1(a), 9.3)	After a show cause notice and a hearing, strike off the citation alone or the whole submission (12.3)
A filing prepared with AI but without the declaration, or with a false declaration (12.1(b)-(c), 5.2)	Treat it as a misrepresentation to the Registry and act under clause 12
Misleading facts generated by AI (12.1(d))	Same procedure under clause 12
Any of the above by a trade mark agent or advocate	Refer the agent to the disciplinary committee for trade mark agents, or the advocate to the Bar Council (12.4)
Evidence suspected of being AI-generated or altered (14.4)	Order the original file, metadata or creation history; exclude the material; draw an adverse inference

Anyone, including the other side in an opposition, could report a suspected fake citation using the form in Annexure II (clause 13). Under clause 13.7, that report does not suspend any deadline in your case.

What the draft does not cover, and where it is unclear

• It is not an anti-squatting rule. The public notice asks for comments on "AI and Squatting", and some coverage presents the draft that way, but the word "squatting" does not appear in the 23-page draft. Squatting was a separate request in the petition; any rules on it would come later, if at all.
• Every filing, or only AI-assisted ones? Clause 8.1 requires the declaration where AI "has been used", while clause 8.3 requires one with "every submission". MediaNama flagged the inconsistency; read together, the safe assumption is that every filing would carry a yes-or-no declaration.
• Translations and labels. Clause 14.2 bars using AI to "materially manipulate, or digitally alter" any translation, image or label filed with the Registry. Commentators on SpicyIP ask whether this reaches ordinary machine-assisted translation of genuine documents. Until that is settled, have translations for Indian filings done or checked by a human translator.
• Only Indian sources count as verification. The list of "Authorised and Recognised Non-AI Legal Sources" in clause 3(k) is expressly a list of Indian sources: the websites of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Official Gazette and CGPDTM publications, certified copies, Indian law reports and databases, and the Registry's own portal. A foreign brand that relies on a U.S. or EU decision, for example to argue reputation, has no listed source for checking it.
• How the Registry will check. The draft says what the declarant must certify, not how the Registry will test it. It also contains cross-reference slips (clause 13.3 refers to a time limit in "clause 14.2", which deals with evidence).

India vs. the USPTO: two answers to the same problem

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office looked at the same risk in its guidance of April 11, 2024 and reached the opposite conclusion on disclosure.

Question	India (draft, October 2026)	United States (USPTO guidance, April 2024)
Is using AI to draft a filing allowed?	Yes, with verification; banned for the substance of affidavits and declarations (14.1)	Yes: "there is no prohibition against using these computer tools"
Must you disclose AI use?	Yes: a yes-or-no declaration with every submission (8.3)	No: "Nor is there a general obligation to disclose to the USPTO the use of such tools", unless the office specifically asks
Who answers for errors?	The declarant and the agent, who sign a dedicated AI declaration (8.2, 8.4)	Whoever signs or submits the paper, under the existing certification of a reasonable inquiry (37 CFR 11.18(b))
AI-generated evidence	Expressly banned; the Registrar can demand native files and metadata (14.2, 14.4)	Warns against AI-generated specimens that do not show real use in commerce
New rules or existing ones?	New guidelines, to be notified by the CGPDTM	Existing rules, which the USPTO found sufficient
Source	CGPDTM draft	89 FR 25609

For a company filing in both countries, the practical difference is a form: the same reply drafted with the same tools would need an AI declaration in India and none in the United States.

What it means if you file in India from abroad

Foreign applicants already need a local footprint. Rule 17 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 requires every applicant and opponent to give "an address for service in India comprising of a postal address in India and a valid e-mail address", which foreign applicants usually provide through an Indian trade mark agent or advocate. Under the draft, that representative would sign the AI declaration alongside the party (clause 8.4). Three practical consequences:

• Replies to examination reports. Under Rule 33(4) the Registrar may treat an application as abandoned if the applicant does not respond within one month of receiving the examination report. If the guidelines are notified as drafted, the declaration would have to be ready inside that same month, and a reply filed without it would be exposed under clause 12.
• Pending files are included. An application already filed would not be exempt: the guidelines apply to proceedings pending on the day they are notified (clause 1.2).
• Your evidence travels through the rule too. Invoices, catalogue pages and screenshots you send for an opposition or a use affidavit would fall under clause 14.2. Keep the original files; the Registrar could ask for them.

A short checklist for brand owners with Indian filings:

1. Ask your Indian representative whether they use AI tools for drafting and how they verify citations.
2. Expect a signed AI declaration with each reply and opposition document once the guidelines are notified.
3. Keep native files and metadata for every piece of evidence of use you supply.
4. Have translations for India prepared or reviewed by a person.
5. Diary December 14, 2026, the next court date, and check for the final text after it.

What happens next

After the comment period, the order of October 13 gives the CGPDTM three more weeks to compile the comments and propose final guidelines, and the court takes the matter up again on December 14, 2026. Nothing changes for filings until the CGPDTM notifies a final text, which may differ from the draft. We will update this page when that happens.

Meanwhile, the basics of filing in India are unchanged, and a search before filing is still the simplest way to lower the risk of an examination objection or an opposition. You can run a trademark search in India, then register your trademark in India through our filing service. Responses to objections and oppositions are quoted separately, after we review the case. Already registered? Keep the mark alive with a trademark renewal in India.