The Licence That Law Forgot: Why Unregistered Trademark Licences Are a Legal Minefield

Photo by Dimitri Karastelev on Unsplash

Here is a question most trademark lawyers do not ask their clients until it is too late: are you actually a registered user, or just a contractual one? The difference, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is the difference between statutory protection and legal vulnerability. A private licence agreement creates obligations between parties, but it does not create permitted use in the eyes of the law. For that, Section 49 demands a joint application, a written agreement on record, an affidavit of control, and formal registration with the Registrar. Skip that step, and the licence exists only on paper, invisible to the statute, and dangerously exposed to challenge.

Think of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as a bouncer at an exclusive club. Section 48 opens the door to the idea of permitted use — but only for those who have earned the right stamp: the status of a registered user, operating under the watchful eye of the trademark proprietor. Want that stamp? Section 49 tells you exactly what it costs. The proprietor and the proposed licensee must walk in together — a joint application, a written agreement, and a sworn affidavit spelling out who controls what, which goods or services are covered, what restrictions apply, and for how long.

Rule 86 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 then hands you the procedural checklist — the paperwork, the timeline, the method. And just in case anyone thought of treating this as optional, both the Act and the Rules use the word shall at every critical turn. Not may. Not should. Shall — the language of obligation, not suggestion. This is not bureaucratic box-ticking; it is the legal mechanism through which a private commercial arrangement graduates into something the statute actually recognises.

Why “We Had an Agreement” Is Not Enough?

Here is the uncomfortable reality for any unregistered licensee: the agreement in your drawer protects you from your licensor — not from the law. Step outside the private relationship between the two parties, and the licence suddenly has very little to say for itself. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not recognise trademark use simply because someone agreed to permit it. It recognises trademark use that has been brought within the statutory framework — registered, disclosed, and placed on public record. Anything short of that is contractual, not statutory, and the law treats the two very differently.

The reason runs deeper than procedure. Trademarks are public-facing rights. They tell consumers where a product comes from and who stands behind it. The moment licences are allowed to operate in the shadows — undisclosed, unregistered, ungoverned by any public record — that assurance starts to erode. Section 49 exists precisely to prevent this: by requiring disclosure of the proprietor’s control, the scope of use, the restrictions, and the territorial limits, the statute ensures that every licence which claims legal validity must earn it openly. The register is not just a filing cabinet. It is the law’s way of asking: if this arrangement is above board, why is it hidden?

Conclusion

The litigation arithmetic here is simple. If you are challenging a licensee’s use of a trademark, the first question to ask is not what does the agreement say — it is where is the registration? An unregistered licensee cannot readily dress up its use as statutorily recognised permitted use, no matter how detailed or carefully worded its private agreement may be. The mandatory language of Section 49 and Rule 86 is not decoration; it is the legal gateway, and those who have not passed through it are standing outside the statute’s protection.

This does not reduce every unregistered licence to worthless paper for all purposes. But it does mean something significant: an unregistered licensee cannot claim the full armour of statutory protection that a registered user enjoys, and that gap is precisely where a legal challenge finds its footing.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel (2006) 8 SCC 726 leaves no room for ambiguity on this front. Even where parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding permitting continued use of a label, mark, and logo, the Court made clear that any right to use a trademark must be exercised in the manner the law prescribes, not merely in the manner the parties agreed. More pointedly, the Court warned that even a common law licence cannot justify trademark dilution, and that unauthorised use, however informally sanctioned, risks causing both confusion and deception.

The message, ultimately, is this: a trademark licence that lives only in a private agreement and never reaches the register is a licence that the law has not truly recognised. In a dispute, that is not a minor procedural gap. It is the entire case.