As part of the continuing saga of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) trying to clear the huge pendency of applications, the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM) was launched through an office circular on February 17, 2026. Priyam argues that the
circular, though rather ambitious, falls into the same pitfalls as earlier (failed) attempts at reducing pendency. Priyam is a third-year student at NLSIU, Bengaluru and is deeply interested in IP and Data Protection laws. His previous posts can be accessed here.
The Bad “Karma” of Interim Measures- Analysing NIPEKM’s Potential Long-term Impacts
by Priyam Mitra
As part of the continuing saga of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) trying to clear the huge pendency of applications, the National IP Pendency Elimination Karma-Mission (NIPEKM) was launched through an office circular on February 17, 2026. The programme is a 10-week blitz directing statutory officers to examine 60 trademark applications per day, culminating on World IP Day (April 26, 2026). To the uninitiated, this framing might seem aspirational and a step in the right direction, however, long time readers of the blog must remember the scars left by the ad-hoc programmes of the CGPDTM, for e.g outsourcing prior art examination to CSIR in 2011 (see here) and more recently the QCI debacle (see here and here). This post evaluates the NIPEKM in this backdrop and argues that the circular, though rather ambitious, falls into the same pitfalls as earlier (failed) attempts at reducing pendency.
The Background to this Circular
It is no secret that the CGPDTM is struggling to keep up with the ever-increasing number of applications. In late 2025, Rajasthan High Court stated, “the right of speedy and expeditious disposal of these applications is one of the most valuable and cherished rights of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21”. There seem to be intuitive counters to such an assertion (over)broadening the rights guaranteed under Article 21 and in fact Kartik Sharma (see here) does analyse this remark critically in his post in much detail, however, this serves as an example of the Trade Mark registry’s inherent structural deficiencies that have compounded the problem of long pendency. To solve these longstanding issues, in late 2021, the CGPDTM entered into a MoU with Quality Council of India (QCI) to deploy around 790 employees on a contractual basis to assist both administratively and even hear opposition matters and pass speaking orders. Md. Sabeeh Ahmad covered this issue in detail (here) including how the judgment of the Calcutta High Court held that as per Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the quasi-judicial powers of the Registrar can only be delegated to “other officers”. The word “officers” here was clarified to be from the “cadre of officers” and thus contractual officers were held to in breach of this definition. Consequently, the CGPDTM, in late 2024, had to issue additional orders for the purpose of re-evaluating the orders passed in the 2 years by the contractual staff (see here). Thus, the pre-examination pendency backlog that NIPEKM now attempts to clear is, in fact, not a new phenomenon and is emblematic of a larger pattern of the CGPDTM not recruiting enough examiners and then running after stop-gap solutions.
What does NIPEKM entail and where it might fall short of its goal
The core directive in Annexure-I of the circular asks 57 Senior Examiners and Examiners, including Copyright Examiners to examine 60 cases per day, every working day in addition to functions and duties that they have been assigned under other office orders. Officers notified under Annexure-II include Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars, and additional Senior Examiners who were not previously assigned examination work. They are tasked with dedicating one day per week for trademark examination even if they are already conducting scheduled show cause hearings four days a week. Importantly, the performance targets have been given in Annexture-IV and require each examiner to examine 60 cases per day including Formality Examination (checking applicant details, agent authority, MSME certificates, NOCs etc.) + Substantive Examination (under Sections 9, 11, and 13 of the Trade Marks Act) + Controlling of applications (Approval of Examination of TM Application with proper justification).
The first issue with the circular is how it notifies 7 Copyright examiners to examine trademark applications. Since the Calcutta HC (¶34) stated that “cadre of officers” can be delegated the functions of the Registrar, prima facie it does seem like Examiners (Copyright) can be considered as officers of the same cadre as they are under the broader administrative framework of the DPIIT and Office of the CGPDTM (pg 3) and are not contracted officers from an entity with private ownership or decision-making (like QCI). However, while the circular does mention that the IT Division of TMR must provide necessary access to the Examination Module to all officers concerned, there are still serious doubts over whether copyright examiners would be able to thoroughly examine trademark applications and provide coherent reasons for the same.
The 2011 Recruitment rules for examiners requires them to have a minimum of 2 years of experience in handling matters of Trade Marks and Geographical Indications. A copyright examiner might not have the requisite experience in trademark matters (since they have different eligibility rules) and yet they might be tasked with reviewing trademark applications in the guise of efficiency within a limited arrangement of 10-weeks. It is interesting to note that a draft (see here) on IP India’s website shows common eligibility criteria for both trademark & GI examiners and Copyright examiners. The criteria of 2 years of experience in TM and GI matters has been relegated to the desirable column from being an “essential” and has been expanded to include experience in matters related to TM, GI, and Copyright. This perhaps indicates a broader move of the CGPTDM towards integrating examiners of all domains. However, as such, this criterion was not seen in the 2025 notification for vacancies and it is to be seen if and when the draft would be implemented.
As much as speedy disposal is important (maybe not as a fundamental right!), well-reasoned orders are equally if not more important than mere speedy disposal of applications which may open up doors for future challenges. All this is to state unequivocally that the true legacy of the program would be far beyond World IP Day 2026 and would be truly judged by whether the 1200 examination reports per person it seeks to complete (whether that would be possible will be briefly talked about in the concluding section) will be able to withstand the scrutiny of keen applicants and the judiciary in the years to follow.
The efficacy of stop-gap solutions and the way forward
The 60 cases per day per officer “performance target” must have caught the eye of readers. Unfortunately, this is not a novel occurrence and such exaggerated performance metrics are an eventuality of such interim measures. The intent with NIPEKM is much appreciated, however, as Praharsh noted here, an inflated quota of applications/day raises apprehensions of effectiveness of the mechanism. Bharathwaj Ramakrishnan (see here and here in the context of targets for patent examiners) has precisely detailed the problems with such hard targets since there are only a limited number of hours that an officer can dedicate and a fixation with the number of applications leads to an eventual prioritization of quantity over quality. He also notes that there exists a very real possibility that officers are likely to make grant orders since appeals are more likely to arise from an unreasoned rejection order. What is required then is not interim solutions that risk quality of the orders passed. As Yogesh noted here, the series of failures through the years means that a mere slap on the wrist through interim measures wouldn’t suffice, and for lasting success, “a sea change at the institutional level” would be needed entailing more recruitments to the posts of examiners without comprising quality.