The Trade Marks Registry accepted the ‘CHUTIYARAM’ trademark for a namkeen and biscuits brand. The examiner said that the name is made of two random words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram’, and is unique. Since there were no strong objections, the trademark was approved. This shows that a brand name must be different and special to get registered.
New Delhi: The Delhi Trademark Office recently accepted the application for the registration of the mark “CHUTIYARAM” under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
This decision, published in the Trademark Journal on Monday, ignited discussions among intellectual property law practitioners regarding its approval process and potential legal ramifications.
In an order issued by Senior Trademark Examiner Balaji on March 4, it was noted,
“None appeared, observed, and ordered that since this is the fourth hearing, the instinct mark is a combination of two arbitrary words Chuti and Ram. The instinct mark as a whole is distinctive and can be differentiated from others; it has no direct reference to the applied goods. Hence, the objection under Section 9 is waived, and the mark is accepted.”
Also Read: Trademark Dispute || SC Allows Pune Eatery to Use ‘Burger King’ Name
The examiner noted that the mark is a combination of two arbitrary words, “Chuti” and “Ram,” concluding that, as a whole, it is distinctive and can be distinguished from other trademarks. The order further indicated that the mark does not have a direct reference to the applied goods namkeen and biscuits resulting in the waiver of objections under Section 9(1), which led to its acceptance.
However, concerns persist regarding how the mark avoided scrutiny under Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that are scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality.
The order also highlighted that the mark was accepted despite the absence of representation for four hearings.
Under Indian trademark law, the registration of expletives or offensive terms as trademarks is generally not permitted. Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explicitly prohibits trademarks deemed scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality.
This rule aims to prevent the approval of words or phrases considered vulgar, offensive, or inappropriate for societal norms.
Also Read: [Trademark Infringement] Bombay HC Imposed Rs 4.5 Crore Penalty On Patanjali
Moreover, trademarks that could offend religious sentiments, mislead consumers, or violate public order may also be rejected. Trademark authorities assess whether a proposed mark could lead to social controversy before granting registration.
Thus, brands seeking to register edgy or provocative names must ensure they align with legal and ethical standards.
When a trademark is marked as “Accepted & Advertised,” it indicates that the application has successfully passed the initial examination phase. The examiner either found no objections or addressed any concerns during the review. Following this acceptance, the mark is published in the Trademark Journal, allowing the public and interested parties to assess it.
Once published, the trademark enters a four-month opposition period, during which third parties can challenge the registration if they believe it infringes on existing rights or contravenes legal provisions. If no opposition is filed, or if the applicant successfully addresses any challenges, the trademark moves toward full registration, culminating in the issuance of a Registration Certificate.
Conversely, if opposition occurs, the applicant must engage in legal proceedings to affirm the mark’s validity. A successful defense allows the mark to proceed to registration, while an unsuccessful challenge may result in rejection.
Class 30 of the Nice Classification (NCL) system, under which “CHUTIYARAM” is registered, encompasses a wide array of food products primarily made from plant-based ingredients or used as seasonings.
A search of the Trademark Registry’s website revealed that the applicant, Sadhna Goswami, has submitted applications for other marks, including “Chutiyawale” and “Chutiyalal.”
However, these applications were either objected to or denied, indicating that the Registry has, in some instances, upheld restrictions on potentially offensive marks.
Read Attachment
