Rules 24-25 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
If a registered design lapses because the fee for extending its copyright was not paid, section 12 of the Designs Act, 2000 allows the proprietor to apply for restoration. Rules 24 and 25 give the procedure: the application is made in Form 4, the Controller tests whether a prima facie case is made out, a hearing may follow, and if restoration is allowed the proprietor pays the unpaid and additional fees within one month. For owners of a lapsed design, our design renewal team can prepare and file the restoration application.
Apply for restoration in Form 4. If the Controller is not satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, he tells the proprietor, who has one month to ask for a hearing; otherwise the application is refused. If heard, and the Controller is prima facie satisfied that the failure to pay the extension fee was unintentional, he allows restoration. The proprietor then pays the unpaid extension fee and the additional fee within a month of the order, and the Controller advertises his decision in the Official Gazette.
Source note
Rules 24 and 25 are read as notified in 2001; the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (G.S.R. 45(E)) did not change them, but substituted the First Schedule with the fees for Form 4 and the additional restoration fee. The 2014 amendment (G.S.R. 925(E)) is not in the sources consulted, and later amendments should be checked. The rules implement sections 12 to 14 of the Designs Act, 2000. The Act text, as enacted, speaks of restoration within one year (section 12); the periods and conditions belong to the Act and are not repeated in these rules. See also our guide to restoration of a lapsed design registration.
Rule 24: restoration
Rule 24(1): the form
"An application for the restoration of a design under section 12 shall be made in Form - 4." Form 4 is titled "Application for Restoration of lapsed design" under section 12(2).
Rule 24(2): where no prima facie case is made out
"Upon consideration of the application and the evidence adduced by the proprietor of the design, if any, if the Controller is satisfied that a prime facie case for the restoration of the design has not been made out he shall intimate the proprietor of the design accordingly, and unless within one month from the date of such intimation the proprietor requests to be heard in the matter, the Controller shall refuse the application."
Drafting slip: "prime facie" is a misprint for "prima facie". The steps are:
- The proprietor applies in Form 4, with evidence if any.
- The Controller considers the application and the evidence.
- If he is satisfied that a prima facie case has not been made out, he intimates the proprietor.
- The proprietor has one month from the date of the intimation to request a hearing.
- If no request is made in that month, the Controller shall refuse the application.
Rule 24(3): hearing and allowing
"If the registered proprietor requests for hearing within the time allowed and the Controller after giving the register proprietor such a hearing, is prima facie satisfied that the failure to pay the fee for extension of copy right was unintentional, he shall allow the application for restoration."
The test is narrow: that "the failure to pay the fee for extension of copy right was unintentional". "Register proprietor" is a misprint for registered proprietor. The text uses "prima facie satisfied": the Controller does not need full proof, but must be satisfied on the material before him. The rule gives no list of what counts as unintentional, and the sources contain no examples.
Rule 25: payment of unpaid extension fee
Rule 25(1). "If the Controller decides in favour of the registered proprietor of the design, the proprietor shall pay the unpaid fees for the extension of copyright and additional fee specified in the First Schedule, within a month from the date of the order of the Controller allowing the proprietor for restoration of the deisign." (Drafting slip: "deisign".)
Rule 25(2). "The Controller shall advertise in the Official Gazette his decision on the application for restoration."
| Step | Rule | Period or action |
|---|---|---|
| Application | 24(1) | Form 4 |
| Intimation of no prima facie case | 24(2) | proprietor has one month from the intimation to request a hearing |
| No hearing request | 24(2) | application refused |
| Hearing and allowance | 24(3) | allowed if prima facie satisfied that failure was unintentional |
| Payment after allowing | 25(1) | unpaid extension fee and additional fee within a month of the order |
| Advertisement | 25(2) | decision advertised in the Official Gazette |
Note the two one-month periods: the first runs from the intimation (to ask for a hearing); the second runs from the date of the order allowing restoration (to pay). The text does not say what happens if the payment under rule 25(1) is not made in time. The rule says only that the proprietor "shall pay".
The fees
As per the Schedule as substituted in 2021:
- Entry 4, Form 4, "On application for restoration of lapsed design under section 12(2)": Rs 1000 for natural persons, startups and small entities, and Rs 4000 for others.
- Entry 5, "Additional fee for restoration": Rs 1000 and Rs 4000 respectively; no form number is printed.
- The fee for extension of copyright itself is in entry 3 (Form 3): Rs 2000 and Rs 8000 respectively (see our article on rules 22-23).
Check the current Schedule before paying. The Schedule describes the Form 4 fee as payable "on application for restoration".
Illustrations (invented)
Allowed. Sunrise Utensils Pvt. Ltd. misses the extension date because its renewal reminder went to a former employee. It applies in Form 4 with an affidavit explaining the lapse. The Controller is not at first satisfied and intimates the company. Within one month the company asks to be heard. After the hearing the Controller is prima facie satisfied that the failure was unintentional and allows restoration. Within one month of the order, Sunrise pays the unpaid extension fee and the additional fee, and the decision is advertised in the Gazette.
Refused. Rohit Das receives the Controller's intimation and does nothing for six weeks. The one month has run out and, under rule 24(2), the Controller shall refuse the application.
What the rules do not say
- They do not state the time within which Form 4 must be filed; that is in section 12 of the Act.
- They do not say what evidence supports an "unintentional" failure.
- They do not say what follows if the fees are not paid within the month after the order.
- They do not give a time for the Controller's first consideration.
Need help restoring a lapsed design?
The one-month periods in these rules are short, and a good affidavit on why the failure was unintentional matters. Our design renewal team can prepare Form 4, attend the hearing and pay the fees on time.
Key takeaways
- Restoration is applied for in Form 4 under section 12.
- If the Controller finds no prima facie case, the proprietor has one month from intimation to ask for a hearing, or the application is refused.
- Restoration is allowed if the Controller is prima facie satisfied that the failure to pay the extension fee was unintentional.
- Unpaid extension fee and additional fee are payable within a month of the order; the decision is advertised in the Gazette.
- The 2014 amendment is not in the sources consulted; check later amendments.
Read next
- Rules 22-23: publication of registered design and extension of copyright
- Rule 26: marking of articles before delivery on sale
- Restoration of lapsed design registration
Disclaimer: Based on the Designs Rules, 2001 as notified and the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Other amendments may apply; fees and forms change from time to time. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.