The applicant alleges that the withdrawal of the “CHUTIYARAM” trademark registration was a result of media pressure and systemic bias. They claim that the trademark registry’s decision was influenced by a media trial rather than legal grounds. Additionally, the applicant argues that there is an inherent prejudice against Hindi and other vernacular languages in the registration process. The case has raised concerns about fairness in trademark approvals and linguistic discrimination.
New Delhi: The applicant seeking to register the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ challenged the Trademark Registry’s assertion that the initial acceptance of the mark was due to an error before it was subsequently withdrawn.
In her written response to the Trademark Registry, applicant Sadhna Goswami contended that the decision to withdraw the registration was swayed by media pressure and a systemic bias against Hindi and other vernacular languages.
Also Read: Trademark Dispute || SC Allows Pune Eatery to Use ‘Burger King’ Name
She further accused several media outlets, of engaging in a “reckless media trial” against the approved trademark and asserted that the Trademark Registry’s decision to withdraw the mark was directly influenced by media pressure.
Her response stated,
“Media outlets unjustly sensationalized the acceptance of the mark, despite the registry’s well-reasoned decision. Various media organizations initiated a targeted and unwarranted campaign against the approval of the mark,”
The applicant’s attorney, Anil Yadav, shared this response on LinkedIn.
The Trademark Registry initially accepted the application for the registration of the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
On March 18, the Trademark Registry retracted its acceptance, citing an error. The order indicated that the mark was subject to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, leading to a proposed withdrawal under Section 19, with a hearing scheduled.
This withdrawal occurred two weeks after the initial acceptance and just one day following its publication in the Trademark Journal. The approval had sparked discussions among intellectual property law experts regarding the review process for potentially offensive marks.
Initially, the examiner had determined that ‘CHUTIYARAM’ was a combination of arbitrary words and found it distinctive, with no direct reference to products such as namkeen and biscuits.
Also Read: [Trademark Infringement] Bombay HC Imposed Rs 4.5 Crore Penalty On Patanjali
Concerns were raised regarding the approval of the mark despite its review under Section 9(2)(c), which prohibits scandalous or obscene trademarks. Additionally, the mark was accepted without representation during four hearings.
Indian trademark law prohibits offensive, deceptive, or morally objectionable marks, with Section 9(2)(c) specifically banning scandalous trademarks. Authorities evaluate potential controversies before granting approval. When a mark is labeled “Accepted & Advertised,” it indicates that it has passed the initial review and is published in the Trademark Journal for public examination.
In the applicant’s response shared on LinkedIn, the term “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम” is described as a composite of two words: “Chutiya” (which derives from “Choti,” referring to a sacred tuft of hair in Hinduism) and “Ram” (which denotes Lord Rama, a venerated figure in Hindu tradition).
Thus, the mark is presented as a symbol of spiritual and cultural heritage rather than having any obscene implications. The applicant asserts that the sacred tuft of hair, or “Shikha,” is a vital part of Hindu rituals and traditions, highlighting the mark’s religious significance.
The applicant stated,
“The term ‘CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम’ as a whole conveys a profound spiritual and cultural essence. It is not a slang term or an offensive expression, but a respectful reference to sacred Hindu traditions,”
The withdrawal of the mark, lacking specific legal citations, undermines the legal integrity of the trademark application process, as noted in the submission.
The applicant emphasized,
“The Registry, as an autonomous statutory body, should operate independently and not yield to external pressures,”
Furthermore, the applicant alleged that there is systemic discrimination against Hindi and other vernacular languages by the Trademark Registry.
The registry’s digital filing system does not include a module for Hindi word marks, which forces applicants to transliterate their marks into English, according to the submission.
The applicant argued,
“The Registry’s persistent emphasis on English as the primary language for word mark applications reflects a colonial mindset,”
In this context, the applicant noted that the registry had previously approved trademarks with potentially offensive meanings, such as “BOOB,” “LAUDA,” and “PUSSY IN BOOTS.”
Consequently, the disparate handling of “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम” is claimed to violate the principle of equality as outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Given these points, the applicant has requested the registrar to:
- Reinstate the acceptance of the trademark “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम.”
- Acknowledge that the withdrawal was a result of media pressure rather than legal justification.
- Uphold the integrity of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, ensuring that future decisions are free from external influence.
- Address systemic biases against Hindi and vernacular languages within the trademark registration process.
Read Attachment