A curious procedural dispute before the Trade Marks Registry, Chennai, has ignited fresh discussion among IP practitioners about a question that should have had a simple answer:
Does a trademark applicant need to file a stamped Power of Attorney (PoA), or is a simple Authorisation of Agent enough?

In the matter concerning a Trademark Application , the Registry insisted that the applicant produce a duly executed Power of Attorney, stamped under Article 44(h) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.

But the applicant pushed back—supported by a strong stack of statutes, definitions, and doctrinal clarity.
And rightly so.

This post breaks down the legal backbone of this argument and clarifies why a trademark agent authorisation cannot be equated with a Power of Attorney.

1. What the Trade Marks Act Actually Requires

Many practitioners already know this instinctively, but it helps to revisit the text of the law.

Section 145: Authorisation in the “Prescribed Manner”

Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allows certain persons—legal practitioners, registered trademark agents, or authorised employees—to perform acts before the Registrar instead of the applicant.

But the key phrase is:

“duly authorised in the prescribed manner”

That “prescribed manner” appears in Rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which mandates filing Form TM-M for authorisation of agent.

Importantly:

• Nowhere does the Act require a “Power of Attorney”

• Nowhere does it mention “stamp duty”

• TM-M itself is the statutory mechanism

So why is this confusion recurring?

2. The Heart of the Issue: What Counts as a “Power of Attorney”?

A true Power of Attorney is a very specific legal instrument. And the law is meticulous about defining it.

Under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959

A PoA is an instrument (a document creating or regulating rights or liabilities) that empowers someone to act in the name of the principal.

And “instrument” itself is defined as one that creates, transfers, limits, records, or extinguishes rights or liabilities.

Under the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882

A PoA allows the donee to execute acts in the name of the donor, with legal effect equivalent to the donor’s direct action.

Now contrast this with trademark representation.

3. Why a Trademark Agent Authorisation Is Not a Power of Attorney

A trademark agent’s authorisation:

• does not empower the agent to create or extinguish rights

• does not bind the applicant in contracts

• does not empower execution of agreements

• does not allow monetary transactions

• does not permit the agent to act “in the name” of the applicant

• is strictly procedural and limited to representation before the Registry

This kind of narrow, statutory authorisation does not fit the definition of a PoA under any of the governing statutes.

It is, in the applicant’s words, an “authorisation simpliciter.”

No rights created.
No liabilities extinguished.
No legal instruments executed.

Just representation.

Which means:
It cannot attract stamp duty.

4. What the Registry’s Own System Recognises

A telling detail:
The official IP India portal only requires the agent to file a TM-M for “authorisation of agent.”
This is the standard nationwide practice.

Nowhere does the portal require uploading a stamped PoA for routine filings.

This reflects the legislative intent: trademark representation is procedural, not transactional.

5. When Would a PoA Actually Be Required?

A stamped PoA becomes relevant only when the agent is asked to:

• assign trademarks

• sign settlement agreements

• receive consideration

• act in transactions affecting rights and liabilities

• handle multiple classes of IP or cross-jurisdictional matters

In such cases, the agent is stepping into a legal or commercial role—not just procedural representation before the Registry.

But none of this applies to routine filing, examination replies, or attendances before the Registrar.

6. The Bigger Picture: Why This Issue Matters

At first glance, this might seem like a minor procedural glitch. But it carries larger implications:

• unnecessary procedural burdens

• inconsistent application across Registries

• delays in processing

• preventable cost escalation through stamp duty

Most importantly, incorrect interpretations erode procedural uniformity—something a national IP system sorely needs.

The law must be applied evenly and as intended.

Conclusion: The Law Favors Simplicity, Not Overreach

The statutory framework is clear:
A Trademark Agent Authorisation (TM-M) is not a Power of Attorney and does not require stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act .

Trademark representation is a procedural facilitation, not a transfer or creation of legal rights.

The Registry’s insistence on a stamped PoA, therefore, appears unsupported in law.

As the matter moves forward, it offers the IP community an important opportunity to reaffirm the correct procedural standards—and to avoid unnecessary formal burdens that have no legal footing.