IP Audit in India: A 6-Phase Framework with the IP India Fields to Pull

How-to · IP Audit

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Most Indian companies do not know exactly what IP they own, who is named as owner on the IP India record, or which deadline falls next. An IP audit fixes that, but only if it is run in a fixed order and every asset is checked against the same fields. This guide gives a 6-phase framework, the 14 data fields to pull for each trademark, patent, design or GI, and one flag, owner-name mismatch against the IP India record, that finds the problems most likely to cost you rights. Last verified October 2026.

01Why IP audits go wrong

An IP audit goes wrong when it is built from memory, old filing receipts and a spreadsheet nobody owns. The register at IP India is the source of truth, and your records drift away from it every year.

The register and your files disagree

Companies rename, merge, convert from private to public, and move brands between group entities. Each change must be recorded at the registry. When it is not, the registered owner stays the old name. A mark can look safe in your files and still be held in a name that no longer exists.

Deadlines hide in four different systems

Trademarks, patents, designs and GIs each have their own term, renewal and response rules. One person tracking all four from email alerts will eventually miss one. A lapsed right is often hard to get back.

Nobody checks the court side

An audit that only reads the register misses disputes. A rival may already be suing over your mark, or you may be named in a cancellation or rectification case. Those show up in court records, not on the register.

An IP audit is only as good as its last comparison with the IP India record. Your files show what you meant to own. The register shows what you actually own.

02The 6-phase IP audit framework

Run the phases in this order. Each phase produces one output that the next phase needs.

1. Phase 1, Inventory. List every mark, patent, design and GI the group uses or claims, including those filed by founders, agencies and old group companies. Output: a master list with one row per asset.
2. Phase 2, Pull the register record. For each row, pull the live IP India record (trademark public search, patent and design search). Fill the 14 fields below. Output: a verified record per asset.
3. Phase 3, Reconcile ownership. Compare the owner on the register with the correct legal entity today. Apply the mismatch flag. Output: a list of chain-of-title gaps.
4. Phase 4, Status and deadlines. Mark each asset as registered, pending, opposed, objected, abandoned or lapsed, and calendar the next date. Output: one deadline calendar.
5. Phase 5, Threats and conflicts. Check the latest Trade Marks Journal for conflicting marks, and check courts for infringement, passing off, rectification and opposition-linked cases. Output: a threat list ranked by risk.
6. Phase 6, Decide and assign. For each asset choose: renew, enforce, assign, license, let lapse, or file new. Give each action an owner and a date. Output: the portfolio review note for management.

Phase 6 is the point of the exercise. An audit that ends with a list and no decisions has not reviewed the portfolio, it has only described it.

03The 14 data fields to pull per asset

Use the same 14 fields for every asset so rows can be compared and sorted. Fields 1 to 10 come from the IP India record. Fields 11 to 14 are your own judgement.

Do not trust a screenshot from last year for fields 5 and 8. Pull them fresh on the audit date and write that date on the row.

04The owner-name-mismatch flag

The owner-name-mismatch flag is raised when the owner on the IP India record is not the exact legal entity that now owns and uses the asset. It is the single most useful check in the audit.

How to run it

1. Take field 5, the owner on the register, exactly as written.
2. Compare it with the current legal name, constitution and address from your MCA or incorporation records.
3. Raise the flag if the name, the entity type (for example Private Limited and Limited), or the entity itself differs.
4. For each flagged row, find the document that explains the gap: change of name certificate, merger order, assignment deed or licence.

Common causes

• Company renamed, but the registry was never told.
• Merger or demerger approved, but marks and patents were not recorded in the new name.
• Founder or agency filed in a personal or agency name.
• Assignment signed, but not recorded at the registry.

Each flagged row needs a recorded fix at the relevant registry before you rely on the right in a notice, a renewal or a case. Ask your IP counsel which application or request applies to each case.

05Deadlines to calendar for each asset type

Calendar these dates in Phase 4. The rules below are the main ones for India, and each should be checked against the statute on the audit date.

For trademarks, official guidance allows renewal to be filed up to one year before expiry. The GI term and renewal rule should also be confirmed against the Act and Rules.

06Do not skip the court-side check

Phase 5 should include court records, because a register check shows only what the registry knows. Search for your own marks, your trade names and your key product names as party names, and look for IP matters in the High Courts that have an IP Division, such as the Delhi High Court.

Look for infringement and passing off suits, rectification or cancellation petitions, and appeals from IP India decisions. Note the next hearing date for each. Copyright is the exception to the registry route in this guide. Copyright registration sits with the Copyright Office, so for copyright run a separate register check and a court check.

For the practical side of watching cases over time, see our guides on bulk litigation search and monitoring and using a litigation monitoring API. For a regular update on IP disputes, see the monthly IP litigation digest.

07Tools and what each does best

You can run this framework with a spreadsheet and the free IP India public search, and for a small portfolio that is often enough. Specialist tools help when the portfolio is large or global. Vendors below price on quote or demo unless stated, so confirm costs with each vendor directly.

No tool is best on every row. The specialist tools above go deeper than an India-first platform in their own areas, and we say so plainly.

08Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

For this framework, Claw covers both sides in one place. Its IPR Solutions tab tracks IP India matters across trademarks, patents, designs and geographical indications. It watches the Trade Marks Journal for conflicting marks using text, phonetic and visual matching and alerts you. It lists pending compliances, including trademark renewals and patent annuity and response deadlines, plus pending hearings and the related documents, tasks and activities. That supports Phases 4 and 5.

On the court side, Claw tracks IP litigation across Indian courts that have a case website. It finds infringement suits by party name, follows High Court IP Division matters such as Delhi IPD by case-type code or by court, number and party, and shows hearings, orders and cause lists. It also offers IP judgment research across 30 crore+ judgments and Legal GPT. Scale: 9,102 courts, benches and forums, 1.5 billion+ records, results in under 5 seconds, Supreme Court from 1950 and High Courts from 1990.

Limits to know. Claw does not yet track copyright registration at the Copyright Office, so for copyright it is court-side only. For global multi-country docketing and annuities, Anaqua, Clarivate or Dennemeyer go deeper. For very high-volume specialist IP-firm docketing, Iolite or JSK are built for it. For AI prior-art search, PatSnap, Questel or IPRally lead. Claw does not train AI models on customer case documents.

Check the current plan page at clawlaw.in. For an all-in-one India IP job that needs registry and court together, Claw is a strong first option to evaluate.

09Sources and further reading

Check every section, rule and form against the primary source before you rely on it. Last verified October 2026.

• IP India (Acts, Rules, forms, public search): ipindia.gov.in
• Trade Marks Rules, 2017: ipindia.gov.in/tm-rules-2017
• Trade Marks Act, 1999, section 25 (Indian Kanoon): indiankanoon.org
• Designs Act, 2000, section 11 (Indian Kanoon): indiankanoon.org
• WIPO: wipo.int
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This page is general information, not legal advice. Fees and forms change, so confirm them on the IP India site.

10Frequently asked questions