The Trade Marks Registry has withdrawn its earlier acceptance of the controversial trademark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ for a namkeen and biscuits brand, citing an error in approval. The decision came after initial acceptance two weeks ago, which sparked discussions among intellectual property law experts regarding the legal and ethical implications of registering potentially offensive terms.
According to a report by the legal website Bar and Bench, the registry admitted that the mark should have been subject to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The order stated that the registration did not meet the necessary legal criteria and was therefore revoked. A hearing has been scheduled to review the application.
Initial Acceptance and Legal Debate
The mark was initially accepted on the grounds that it was a combination of two arbitrary words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram,’ which, when considered together, were deemed distinctive and unrelated to the applied goods—namkeen and biscuits. The examiner waived objections under Section 9(1), which typically applies to descriptive or non-distinctive marks, leading to its approval.
However, legal experts questioned how the mark bypassed 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 controversy intensified after it was revealed that the mark had been accepted despite no representation being made for four consecutive hearings.
Legal Framework and Prohibition of Offensive Trademarks
Under Indian trademark law, registering expletives or words deemed offensive is prohibited. Section 9(2)(c) specifically bars trademarks that could be considered obscene or against public decency and morality.
Following the backlash and legal concerns, the Trade Marks Registry invoked Section 19 of the Act, in conjunction with Rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, to retract its acceptance. A formal hearing will now determine whether the mark can be reconsidered or permanently rejected.
Conclusion
The case has sparked a broader debate on the oversight and review mechanisms within India’s trademark registration process. It highlights the challenges of balancing free expression, brand identity, and public morality in intellectual property law. The upcoming hearing is expected to provide further clarity on the matter and set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Sources By Agencies
