Home > Resources > Trademark FAQs > Trademark Renewal & Restoration
Trademark Renewal & Restoration FAQs
India │ Trademark renewal timing, Form TM-R, RG-3 notice, surcharge renewal, removal, restoration, Section 26 effects, ownership complications, Madrid renewals and portfolio controls.
Purpose and Scope. Renewal and restoration are deadline-sensitive Registry processes. The live registration record, expiry date, notice and dispatch history, ownership, form, fee, court or Registry orders and any affected third-party interests should be checked before filing or relying on a portal status.
A. Duration, Expiry Date and Ordinary Renewal
Section 25 provides a ten-year registration term, renewable for successive ten-year periods. Under Section 23, once registration is granted, the trademark is ordinarily registered as of the date on which the application was made, subject to the convention-priority provisions. The first renewal date is therefore generally calculated by reference to that deemed registration date rather than simply ten years from the date on which the physical or electronic certificate was issued.
Because Section 23 treats the application date as the registration date once registration is completed. If prosecution or opposition took several years, the certificate can be issued well after the deemed registration date. Rule 58 contains special safeguards where registration occurs shortly before, or after, the date on which renewal has already become due.
Rule 57 permits an application for renewal in Form TM-R at any time not more than one year before expiration of the last registration. A portfolio should therefore be reviewed well before expiry so that proprietor details, ownership changes, class coverage and payment issues can be addressed without relying on the post-expiry mechanisms.
Ordinary renewal is requested in Form TM-R with the prescribed fee. Before filing, verify the registration number, proprietor, class or classes, specification, expiry date, status, address for service, pending recordal requests and any court or Registrar order that may affect renewability.
Under the currently published First Schedule, the renewal fee is ₹9,000 per class for e-filing and ₹10,000 per class for physical filing. The live official fee schedule should be checked immediately before filing because fees and electronic filing requirements can change.
The current First Schedule prescribes the renewal fee for each class. A multi-class registration should therefore be reviewed class by class for fee and portfolio purposes. The exact TM-R filing structure and any intended class-level change should be checked before filing rather than assuming that one flat fee covers the entire multi-class registration.
Ordinary renewal is a maintenance process under Section 25 rather than a fresh substantive examination of registrability. However, renewal does not cure defects in title or validity and does not protect the registration from a separate non-use or rectification challenge. Evidence of genuine use should therefore still be preserved even though it is not ordinarily the central requirement for a routine TM-R renewal.
Rule 57 states that a timely renewal request is to be allowed unless the trademark has been removed or cancelled, is otherwise not renewable under the Act or Rules, or is affected by an order of a competent court or the Registrar. A current status check is therefore necessary before payment, especially where the mark is involved in rectification, cancellation or other proceedings.
B. RG-3 Notice, Late Registration and the Six-Month Surcharge Window
In the ordinary renewal situation governed by Section 25(3) and Rule 58(1), where no renewal application and fee have been received, the Registrar is to send Form RG-3 at the recorded address for service, not more than six months before expiration, stating the approaching expiry and the conditions for renewal. Rules 58(2) and 58(3) contain separate late-registration situations, and the Delhi High Court in Mankind Pharma v. Registrar of Trade Marks (24 November 2025) held that Rule 58(1)’s RG-3 mechanism does not apply to a case squarely governed by Rule 58(3). A proprietor should in all events maintain an independent renewal docket.
Rule 58 provides that the notice is to be sent not more than six months before expiration of the registration where no renewal application and fee have been received. The recorded address for service should therefore be kept current well before the renewal period.
No automatic rule applies. In Raju Patel v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (Bombay High Court, 21 July 2026), the Court held that where the Registrar proved proper issuance and dispatch of the RG-3 notice to the recorded trade mark agent, the statutory service presumption followed even though the proprietor asserted non-receipt years later. The result can differ where issuance, dispatch, address-for-service or recorded-agent facts are materially different. The correspondence, dispatch and address history should therefore be examined before advising on a missed renewal.
That can raise a serious service and procedural issue. The result depends on the Registry record, whether the new address or agent details had actually been recorded, where the notice was dispatched and what evidence of service exists. Recent High Court decisions show that these disputes are fact-sensitive. A proprietor should preserve every address-change filing and acknowledgement rather than relying only on the current portal display.
Rule 58(2) provides that where, by reference to the application date, renewal becomes due and the mark is registered within six months before that due date, the renewal fee may be paid within six months after the actual date of registration. This protects an applicant whose registration process consumed most of the initial ten-year term.
Rule 58(3) permits the renewal fee to be paid within six months from the actual date of registration where, by reference to the application date, the first renewal had already become due before the mark was actually registered. In Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (Delhi High Court, 24 November 2025), the Court treated Rule 58(3), rather than the ordinary Rule 58(1) RG-3 reminder framework, as the governing rule for such a late-registration situation. The judgment also turned on the case-specific fact that communication of the registration itself had not reached the proprietor. A late-issued registration should therefore be checked against the actual registration communication and Rules 58(2)–(3).
Section 25(3) preserves a further six-month statutory window. If Form TM-R is filed within six months from expiration with the prescribed renewal fee and surcharge, the Registrar shall not remove the mark and shall renew the registration for the next ten-year period. This route should be treated as a rescue mechanism rather than a planned renewal strategy.
The currently published First Schedule prescribes an e-filing surcharge of ₹4,500 per class in addition to the ordinary ₹9,000 renewal fee, making the present e-filing total ₹13,500 per class. For physical filing, the surcharge is ₹5,000 in addition to the ₹10,000 renewal fee. The current fee schedule should be checked immediately before payment.
The six-month surcharge period appears in Section 25(3) itself. Section 131 permits extension only for time not expressly provided in the Act. Accordingly, the six-month Section 25(3) period should not be treated as an ordinary extendable Rules-based deadline. A proprietor approaching the end of that period should proceed on the basis that the statutory deadline must be met.
Do not rely on the status label alone. Obtain the current registration record, expiry date, RG-3 correspondence if any, renewal-payment history and removal or Journal record, and identify whether the matter is still within the Section 25(3) surcharge window or has moved into the restoration stage. The correct route depends on the actual statutory timeline, not merely the wording of a portal alert.
C. Removal, Restoration and Renewal after Removal
Rule 59 permits removal where the registration has expired and renewal fees have not been paid, subject to the Section 25(3) safeguard. The Registrar must not remove the mark if the prescribed surcharge application is made in Form TM-R within six months from expiration. Removal is advertised in the Trade Marks Journal.
Expiry is the end of the current ten-year registration term. Removal is the Registry action by which a mark is taken off the register for non-payment of the renewal fee. Section 25 creates a six-month surcharge route after expiry before the proprietor loses the ordinary renewal rescue provided by subsection (3). The live Registry record should be checked because displayed status and formal removal events may not occur on exactly the same day.
Restoration is the statutory route for a trademark that has been removed from the register for non-payment of renewal fees. The Registrar may restore and renew the mark if satisfied that it is just to do so, having regard to the statutory framework and the interests of persons affected. It is therefore discretionary rather than automatic.
Section 25(4) provides for restoration after six months and within one year from expiration of the last registration. Rule 60 requires the application for restoration and renewal in Form TM-R within one year from expiration. The first six months are ordinarily the surcharge-renewal period under Section 25(3); the later portion of the one-year period is the restoration route once removal has occurred.
Restoration and renewal are sought in Form TM-R. The filing should identify the registration, expiry and removal position accurately and should include the prescribed restoration and renewal fees and any supporting explanation or documents required by the current Registry process.
The currently published First Schedule prescribes, for e-filing, ₹9,000 per class for restoration in addition to the ordinary ₹9,000 renewal fee, making the present total ₹18,000 per class. For physical filing, the restoration component is ₹10,000 in addition to the ₹10,000 renewal fee. The live fee schedule should be rechecked before filing.
No. Section 25(4) requires the Registrar to be satisfied that restoration is just, and Rule 60 directs the Registrar to have regard to the interests of other affected persons. A timely application is essential but does not by itself compel restoration.
Yes. Section 25(4) allows the Registrar to restore and renew the mark either generally or subject to conditions or limitations considered appropriate. A proprietor should therefore review the restoration order itself rather than assuming that the revived registration necessarily has exactly the same practical position in every respect.
Section 25(4) provides that the restored registration is renewed for ten years from the expiration of the last registration, not for ten years from the later date on which the restoration order happens to be made. Restoration therefore repairs the continuity of the registration term rather than starting a new ten-year clock from the decision date.
Rule 61 requires notice of the renewal, or restoration and renewal, to be sent to the registered proprietor and every registered user, and the event is to be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. The completion file should preserve the Registry acknowledgement and confirm that the register reflects the renewed position.
Section 25(4) and Rule 60 do not provide an ordinary restoration route beyond one year from expiration. If the statutory period has been missed, any possible remedy depends on exceptional facts, including whether mandatory renewal notice requirements were complied with and whether judicial relief is legally available. A proprietor should not assume that the Registrar can simply condone a multi-year delay.
Where the ordinary Section 25(3) / Rule 58(1) notice framework applies, a failure by the Registry to take the required notice step can raise a serious legal issue concerning removal. But the inquiry is factual: proof of proper issuance and dispatch can trigger a presumption of service, as Raju Patel confirms, while Rule 58(3) late-registration cases are governed differently, as Mankind Pharma explains. Any challenge should be based on the complete RG-3, dispatch, agent and address-for-service record.
D. Effect of Removal, Continued Use and Third-Party Rights
No. Section 26 provides that, for one year after removal for failure to pay the renewal fee, the removed mark is deemed to remain on the register for the purpose of considering another trademark application, unless the competent authority is satisfied that there was no bona fide trade use during the two years immediately preceding removal or that no deception or confusion is likely from the later mark.
No. Section 26 creates a limited statutory effect for considering another application during the one-year period after removal. It does not simply recreate all rights of a subsisting registration. Separate questions concerning infringement, passing off, restoration and actual use must be analysed under their own provisions.
Use and registration are separate questions. Continued genuine use may support goodwill and passing-off rights, but it does not automatically preserve all statutory rights of a live registration and can still conflict with stronger prior or competing rights. The business should therefore review both the Registry position and marketplace rights before assuming continued use is legally safe.
The ® symbol should not be used merely because an old registration certificate once existed. Where the registration has expired, been removed or is awaiting restoration, the live Registry position should be checked before representing the mark as currently registered. Section 107 prohibits false representation that a trademark is registered. If restoration is later granted, the position can be reassessed from the effective Registry record.
No. Renewal maintains the registration and restoration revives it through the Section 25 process, but neither is a fresh adjudication of all validity, ownership, prior-rights or non-use issues. The mark can still be challenged through rectification, non-use proceedings, prior-user rights or other legal grounds.
Yes. Section 47 is separate from Section 25. Payment of renewal fees does not substitute for genuine use. A registration can remain vulnerable to a non-use removal application if the statutory conditions under Section 47 are satisfied.
No. Goodwill arises from actual trade and reputation, not merely from the Registry entry. A business may retain passing-off or other use-based rights after removal if the factual requirements are satisfied. Conversely, a registration that has been renewed may have little practical strength if the mark has not been genuinely used and another party has superior prior rights.
E. Ownership, Recordal and Special Situations
The discrepancy should be classified and corrected through the appropriate Registry procedure. A change of address, change of name, assignment, merger and succession are different legal events and require different supporting documents. The renewal should not be used to conceal or bypass a title problem.
Section 25 refers to renewal by the registered proprietor, while Section 45 governs recordal of a subsequent proprietor. Where ownership has already changed but the register has not been updated, the assignment and renewal steps should be coordinated carefully. The assignee should not assume that payment of a renewal fee alone cures the unrecorded chain of title.
Identify who legally succeeded to the trademark and assemble the succession, merger, probate, corporate or other title documents before renewal or restoration. Authority to instruct and the Registry ownership record should be aligned. A former director, partner or family member should not be assumed to have authority merely because that person previously dealt with the mark.
Not necessarily. Strike-off, dissolution, liquidation or insolvency can affect ownership, control and the authority to act for the company. The corporate or insolvency law position should be established first, including whether restoration of the company, liquidator authority, resolution-professional action or another legally recognised route is required.
Yes. Renewal of the underlying registration can affect licensed rights, and Rule 61 requires notice of renewal or restoration to every registered user. Existing licence terms, registered-user duration, termination provisions and any change in proprietor should therefore be reviewed when the registration is renewed or restored.
Yes. Rule 57 recognises that a mark may be non-renewable because it has been removed or cancelled or because an order of a competent court or the Registrar affects the position. Pending or concluded rectification, cancellation, injunction, insolvency or ownership proceedings should be identified before treating renewal as a routine payment matter.
Rule 58 confirms that renewal of collective and certification trademarks is also sought in Form TM-R with the prescribed fee. Their underlying regulations, proprietor status and any special statutory conditions should nevertheless be reviewed because those marks operate under specialised parts of the Act.
Not ordinarily. An international registration under the Madrid System is renewed centrally through WIPO / eMadrid rather than through Indian Form TM-R. WIPO currently states that an international registration is valid for ten years and can be renewed directly through the International Bureau, including a six-month grace period after expiry subject to the applicable surcharge. A national Indian registration and an international registration designating India should therefore be maintained on separate renewal workflows.
F. Portfolio Management, Records and Renewal Controls
Keep the registration certificate, current e-register extract, application and registration numbers, class and specification, expiry calculation, proprietor and address-for-service details, ownership and assignment documents, registered-user or licence records, any RG-3 notice, previous renewal acknowledgements, relevant court or Registry orders and payment authority. The file should explain both the right being renewed and the person authorised to act.
In addition to the ordinary renewal file, preserve the expiration and removal history, RG-3 correspondence and dispatch record, explanation for non-renewal, current marketplace use, third-party developments during the lapse, assignment or ownership changes and any evidence relevant to affected persons. Restoration is discretionary, so the factual record should be more complete than for routine renewal.
Not necessarily. Each mark and class should be reviewed for current and planned use, commercial importance, title, non-use exposure, overlap with other registrations, enforcement value, licensing commitments, pending transactions and cost. The decision not to renew should be deliberate and documented because abandonment of an apparently unused mark can still affect brand strategy or contracts.
Because Rule 57 permits filing up to one year before expiry, a portfolio review can sensibly begin around that point. This gives time to resolve ownership, address, classification and budget issues. A business with many marks should maintain reminders at several intervals rather than waiting for the RG-3 notice.
Record the mark, application and registration number, proprietor, classes, specification, application or deemed registration date, current expiry date, renewal window, address for service, agent, licences or registered users, assignment history, use status, current Registry status, renewal decision, filing acknowledgement, fee paid and next expiry date.
Common mistakes include calculating ten years only from the certificate date; waiting for the RG-3 notice; failing to update the address for service; missing the six-month surcharge period; assuming restoration is automatic; overlooking Section 25(4)’s one-year outer period; paying renewal without checking title; treating an unrecorded assignment as irrelevant; assuming a removed mark is immediately free for third parties; overlooking non-use vulnerability; and failing to confirm that the Registry has actually recorded the renewal.
Maintain an independent portfolio docket linked to the Registry record but not dependent on Registry reminders. Begin review before the one-year filing window opens, verify ownership and status before payment, file early where possible, preserve the acknowledgement, confirm the renewed entry and Journal event, and immediately investigate any discrepancy between the expected expiry date and the Registry display.
Matter-specific status review, renewal or restoration assessment, filing support, deadline control and related ownership or document review can be provided within an accepted professional engagement. No outcome, restoration, Registry acceptance, future validity or enforceability can be guaranteed; the result depends on the statutory timeline, Registry record, title and authority, any affected third-party interests, and the facts of the particular matter.
If you have a live registration, renewal notice, removal status or trademark ownership document requiring matter-specific review, you may send a Preliminary Enquiry.
Subject to conflict check, scope confirmation, professional terms and express acceptance by Analysta Juris Legal Solutions.
Last reviewed: 13 September 2026