The End of the Free Facilitator : Rebuilding the Startup IP Budget After SIPP

Introduction : On 7th January 2026, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks released a notice in the media identifying digital portals that advertised their services of dealing with trade mark matters over the digital media. The law was firm, only registered trade marks agents and enrolled advocates could practice before the registrar of trade marks. Any party routing any filing through any other entity was doing so at their own peril. Founders read the news with great interest and asked their advisers the pungent question, i.e, if the cheap option is no longer available, where do we get the honest and affordable option?

For a decade, the state had a ready answer: A start-up that got itself empaneled by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade could approach any empaneled facilitator, pay the statutory fees, and leave the professional charges to the Central Government. The answer has since changed, with the notified version of the Scheme for Facilitating Start-Ups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) expiring on 31 March 2026. The IP India website that hosts the scheme notifications only shows the 2023 notification so far.

The result is a budgeting problem before it becomes a legal issue. That is the message of this article, which discusses what SIPP will cover, what falls outside its scope, who the founders should be hiring for the patent and trademark expenses, who can lawfully perform these tasks, where the money is likely to come from, and how a portfolio might be prioritized after every rupee earned by the founding team is on the line.

What SIPP Actually Paid for

SIPP has modified a fee by shifting from giving a rebate to levying a charge. The facilitator had got a sum of money from the central government at particular stages and was prohibited from demanding from the applicant. The schedule for 2023 provides for a payment of Rs.15,000 on filing a patent application and Rs.25,000 on its final disposal which increases to Rs.35,000 if any opposition is involved. Similarly, trademarks and designs had attracted Rs.3,000 on filing, Rs.5,000 on disposal, and Rs.10,000 on opposition, respectively. Statutory fees were paid by the applicant directly to the relevant authority like the Patent Cooperation Treaty and Madrid System.

The reach of the current version extends beyond what most founding members realize as it includes the Indian counterparts in addition to the known startups that were shortlisted. The final version covers Indian innovators and researchers via a Technology and Innovation Support Centre, eligible educational institutions, and applicants choosing India as the International Searching Authority.

The number of trademark applications by startups has risen from four during 2016-17 to 8,649 during 2021-22. In addition, between 2016-17 and October 2022, startups had filed 7,430 patent applications and 28,749 trademark applications apart from ₹380.81 lakh paid to various facilitators as of 30 September 2022.

What Survives the Expiry

Three supporters continue, and each rests on a legal source independent of SIPP. They are:

• Statutory fee concession is still in place, but a startup, small entity, natural person or educational institution will pay Rs 1,600 to electronically file a patent application containing up to thirty pages and ten claims as against Rs 8,000 by others. Similarly, a startup or small entity will pay Rs 4,500 per mark per class to electronically file Form TM-A as against Rs 9,000 by others. These concessions of 80 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively, were announced by the government in the past.
• Expedited examination process survives. A start-up can seek it by Form 18A by virtue of Rule 24C. Also, a start-up ceasing to be a start-up during pendency of prosecution shall be treated as such for the purposes of this application. The concessional rate is ₹8,000 in lieu of ₹60,000.
• Advisory services by Technology and Innovation Support Centres are sustained because this network was established under the aegis of DPIIT in collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and not through SIPP.

The gap is the commercial value of professional work. Drafting, prosecution, hearings and opposition are all charged to the client by the firm involved. One company charges anything between Rs 30,000 and 80,000 per application, depending on the work ahead.

Budgeting for Patents and Trademarks

Founders should budget in three layers: statutory fees, professional fees, and a contingency for adversarial stages.

For a single class trademark, the first-year cost comprises ₹4,500 Government fee and a professional fee for conducting a trademark search and classification, drafting specification of goods/services, and filing the application. A trademark opposition involves a reply to the opposition and a hearing before the Trademark Office if required under section 9 or section 11 of Trade Marks Act 1999. In addition, objections and appearances add up making it the main component of a trademark budget. For three classes, the official fee is tripled before professional fees are added.

Patents are filed, examined, and get approved and then renewed. This takes years. The process of patents includes filing the application form, requesting for examination, responding to the first examination report, hearing (if any), grant, and renewal from the third year onwards. A provisional specification filing helps get a twelve-month period at a nominal fee. Provisional specification filing is worth the effort since the claims made therein form the basis for the priority date.

Two issues stand out as requiring the board’s particular attention. First, the concessional rate is determined based on Form 28 being available on record indicating the status. It is therefore critical for filings not to be processed as large entity filings in the absence of such a form. Second, I suggest that professional service charges be structured around milestones rather than time-based billing or as a single lump sum payment. This is because the SIPP was also charged on a similar basis.

Alternative Facilitators

The word facilitator had a distinct meaning under the scheme. The meaning has gone, the professionals remain. The SIPP panel consisted of registered patent agents, registered trade marks agents, advocates and government agencies like TIFAC, NRDC, BIRAC, CSIR and the Patent Information Centres and the TISCs themselves. Each of these continue to exist, and carry the same qualifications as they had in March 2026.

The controlling law is also in place, with Sections 126 and 127 of the Patents Act 1970 governing registration and the rights of patent agents as well as Section 145 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 governing agencies before the Registrar. The Advocates Act 1961 covers enrolled advocates. The public notice issued in January 2026 reiterated the parameters for a digital marketplace.

Four options remain therefore open to the innovator. To retain the services of a registered agent on a direct fixed-fee basis, as a milestone payment for work performed on the patent or the TM application. To approach a TISC at a host university, for pre-expense prior art searching. To approach an Intellectual Property Facilitation Centre empanelled by the MSME Innovative Scheme, for advisories, patentability searches, or filing of claims. To work with an incubator or institutional technology office, for deep research collaboration.

Funding Routes

Money remains available. It simply comes in late, and from different doors. The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises reimburses IP costs under the IPR component of the MSME Innovative Scheme. For a domestic patent, it covers up to ₹1 lakh, ₹5 lakh for a foreign patent, ₹2 lakh for a geographical indication, ₹15,000 for a design and ₹10,000 for a trademark. This is a one-time support, which requires a valid Udyam registration. Further, the same asset cannot have been supported under any other central or state government scheme.

State schemes also exist. For instance, the Kerala Startup Mission reimburses up to ₹2 lakh for an Indian patent, and up to ₹10 lakh for a foreign patent. Payments are disbursed at various stages – filing, prosecution, and grant. Karnataka offers similar reimbursements, up to the same maximum amounts, but with a requirement of being both registered with the state’s startup cell and being in an incubation program. Further, advisers should check the latest numbers on their respective state portals before advising a client as several states have revised their rules pertaining to startups in recent months.

Three characteristics of these routes are pertinent. First, they offer reimbursement, not advances – which means that the MSME will pay the costs incurred by the startup, but the latter must fund the work done till the application is filed. Second, payment is typically due upon either the registration or the grant of the right – for a patent, this could mean waiting several years before the money is due. Finally, the prohibition on double claiming means that the start-up must apply for reimbursement before approaching any other government scheme, including the IPR assistance component of the DPIIT.

Portfolio Prioritisation

Money remains available. It simply comes in late, and from different doors.

The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises reimburses IP costs under the IPR component of the MSME Innovative Scheme. For a domestic patent, it covers up to ₹1 lakh, ₹5 lakh for a foreign patent, ₹2 lakh for a geographical indication, ₹15,000 for a design and ₹10,000 for a trademark. This is a one-time support, which requires a valid Udyam registration. Further, the same asset cannot have been supported under any other central or state government scheme.

State schemes also exist. For instance, the Kerala Startup Mission reimburses up to ₹2 lakh for an Indian patent, and up to ₹10 lakh for a foreign patent. Payments are disbursed at various stages – filing, prosecution, and grant. Karnataka offers similar reimbursements, up to the same maximum amounts, but with a requirement of being both registered with the state’s startup cell and being in an incubation program. Further, advisers should check the latest numbers on their respective state portals before advising a client – several states have revised their rules pertaining to startups in recent months.

Three characteristics of these routes are pertinent. First, they offer reimbursement, not advances – which means that the MSME will pay the costs incurred by the startup, but the latter must fund the work done till the application is filed. Second, payment is typically due upon either the registration or the grant of the right – for a patent, this could mean waiting several years before the money is due. Finally, the prohibition on double claiming means that the start-up must apply for reimbursement before approaching any other government scheme, including the IPR assistance component of the DPIIT.

A Revised Startup IP Road-map

The revised road-map has been categorized into four steps, they are:

1. Day 0-30: Secure DPIIT recognition & Udyam registration – the former gets you legal statutory concessions, the latter unlocks MSME reimbursement. Conduct clearance searches on the brand. Draft invention disclosure and confidentiality terms into employment and contractor agreements.
2. Month 1-6: File priority trademarks in classes of use. Once the technology is sufficiently developed to describe, file a provisional specification for the core invention. Get a registered agent on a written, milestoned fee schedule. Pick a reimbursement option and stick to it; switching is barred by double funding norms.
3. Month 6-18: File complete specifications for the inventions. Consider expedited examination if a funding round or launch depends on an early registration. Docket the examination date alongside Paris Convention and PCT deadlines. Start monitoring the Trade Marks Journal.
4. Month 18-36: Prosecution, oppositions, appearances – budget for contingency funds. As registrations are granted, file reimbursement claims. Annually review the portfolio for revenue contribution; de-register elements that have ceased to serve the business.

Most importantly, keep a close eye on DPIIT and CGPDTM notifications. SIPP was renewed thrice between 2016-2023, thus a successor policy is likely to rationalize incentives further. Planning around the current framework while keeping an exit strategy for the next fiscal year makes good sense.

Author:- Priyanshu Kandpal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

Endnotes

1. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Public Notice regarding unauthorized persons/entities dealing with Trade Mark matters, January 7, 2026, available on the official IP India website: IP India.
2. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Scheme for Facilitating Start-Ups Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP), notification dated 2023, setting out the scheme framework, eligibility and facilitator reimbursement structure, available through Startup India and IP India.
3. The Patents Rules, 2003, Rules 24C and relevant fee provisions, read with the First Schedule, providing for expedited examination and concessional fees available to eligible startups and other specified applicants; see IP India – Patents Rules and Forms.
4. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, MSME Innovative Scheme – Incubation, Design and IPR, including financial assistance available under its IPR component for patents, trademarks, designs and geographical indications; see MSME Innovative Scheme.
5. The Patents Act, 1970, §§ 126–127; The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 145; and The Advocates Act, 1961, governing the qualifications and rights of patent agents, representation before the Registrar of Trade Marks and the practice of law by enrolled advocates, respectively; official legislative texts are available through India Code.