10 June 2025 Trademark Laws in India >> Intellectual Property Rights  

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the owner of the TikTok trademark, challenging an order from the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks. The Registrar had refused to include TikTok in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

The petitioner argued that the Registrar failed to properly consider the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and its rules. They contended that the refusal was based on irrelevant reasons, specifically the ban imposed on the TikTok application by the Government of India. The petitioner highlighted that extensive material supporting the mark's well-known status was ignored and that the Registrar erroneously referred to Section 9 instead of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.

However, the respondent, represented by Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, argued that while a wrong section might have been cited, the Registrar did consider relevant material. It was emphasized that Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act allows the Registrar to consider "any fact which he considers relevant" when determining if a trademark is well-known, and this is not an exhaustive list. The ban on TikTok, imposed by the Government of India due to concerns about sovereignty, integrity, defense, security of the state, public order, and data privacy, was deemed a highly relevant factor.

The Court concurred, stating that despite the incorrect reference to Section 9, the Registrar's decision to consider the ban on the TikTok application was valid under Section 11(6). The Court noted that the reasons for the ban—prejudice to India's sovereignty and integrity, defense, and public order—are serious matters that cannot be overlooked. Since the ban on TikTok in India remains in effect and has not been challenged or set aside by any competent authority, the Court found no error in the Registrar's decision to refuse TikTok's inclusion in the list of well-known trademarks. While acknowledging that non-use in India due to a ban would typically be irrelevant for well-known mark determination under Section 11(9)(i), the pervasive national security concerns underpinning the ban made it a crucial "relevant fact."

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Registrar's order.

Section 124, Trade Marks Rules - 1959  

Section 9, TRADE MARKS ACT - 1999  

Section 11, TRADE MARKS ACT - 1999  

TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999