Trademark Agent Authorisations Liable To Stamp Duty: Kerala HC Clarifies

On September 30, 2026, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in John Vadassery v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr., [W.P.(C) No. 17 of 2026; 2026:KER:76394] held that an authorisation executed in favour of a trademark agent to represent an applicant before the Trade Marks Registry is an instrument and has “all the trappings of a power of attorney” and must be stamped under the relevant Stamp Act of the place where it is executed.

The petitioner, a trademark agent, challenged the Registry’s practice of requiring authorisations stamped as a power of attorney. He argued that Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, only requires a person to be “duly authorised”, and that, since Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, contemplates representation through an authorisation, the statutory framework cannot be read as mandating a stamped power of attorney. He contended that the authorisation contemplated under the Act and Rules was not an instrument requiring stamping like a power of attorney.

The respondents submitted that the authorisation enables an agent to act on behalf of the applicant, receive communications and appear before the Registrar, and therefore attracts stamp duty under the applicable Stamp Act.

The Court noted that under Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, the Registrar is an officer appointed by the Central Government and is neither a Court nor a Tribunal. Accordingly, court-fee statutes do not apply to documents presented before the Registrar. The Court referred to Section 2(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, which excludes documents presented before an officer serving under the Central Government. Under Section 145, a legal practitioner, registered trademark agent or person in the sole and regular employment of the principal may act before the Registrar when duly authorised. Rule 19 prescribes the manner of such authorisation and provides that service on the agent is deemed to be service on the person authorising the agent.

The Court observed that the agent’s functions are multifarious and significant, as the agent may act on behalf of the principal, accept service of notices and documents and appear before the Registry. Such acts bind the principal and can create or affect the principal’s rights.

On stamp duty, the Court held that neither the Trade Marks Act nor the Rules can determine whether stamp duty is payable. Referring to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, the Court noted that the relevant definitions are identical. Under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Stamp Act, an “instrument” includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded, and under Section 2(p) a “power of attorney” includes any instrument (not chargeable with a fee under the law relating to court fees) empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.

Relying on Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Dilip Construction Co., [(1969) 1 SCC 597], and Dr. Chiranji Lal v. Haridas, [(2005) 10 SCC 746], the Court noted that stamp duty is a fiscal measure securing State revenue. It also relied on The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Union of India & Ors., [2002 SCC OnLine Ker 675], which held that authorisations filed before taxing authorities are liable to be stamped under the Stamp Act of the place where they are executed.

The Court distinguished a vakalatnama filed before a Court or Tribunal, which, though in effect a power of attorney, is chargeable to court fees under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, and therefore does not attract stamp duty. This reasoning, it held, does not extend to authorisations before the Trade Marks Registry, as the Registrar is an officer appointed by the Central Government to whom that Act does not apply.

The Court ultimately held that an authorisation under Section 145 read with Rule 19 is an instrument creating a right to represent another and must be stamped under the relevant Stamp Act where executed. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.