The recent decision by the Delhi Trademark Office to accept the registration of the mark CHUTIYARAM under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, has sparked widespread debate within the legal and intellectual property communities. The mark, which applies to namkeen and biscuits, was published in the Trademark Journal earlier this week, raising questions about the approval process and the broader implications for trademark law in India.
In an order issued on March 4, Senior Trademark Examiner Balaji noted that the mark was a combination of two arbitrary words, Chuti and Ram, and was deemed distinctive enough to warrant acceptance. Since it bore no direct reference to the applied goods, the examiner waived objections under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which relates to the descriptiveness of a mark. However, this decision has left many wondering how it bypassed scrutiny under Section 9(2)(c), which prohibits trademarks that are scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality.
Adding to the controversy, the examiner’s order acknowledged that no one had appeared to represent the application across four hearings before the mark was accepted. This raises concerns about procedural lapses and whether sufficient scrutiny was applied to ensure compliance with legal standards. Under Indian trademark law, words or phrases that are vulgar, offensive, or contrary to social norms are typically rejected. Authorities are expected to consider the potential impact on public sensibilities before granting registration.
Once a trademark is “Accepted & Advertised,” it enters a four-month opposition period, during which any third party can challenge its registration. If no opposition is filed, or if the applicant successfully defends the mark, it proceeds to full registration, culminating in a Registration Certificate. However, if objections are raised, the applicant must engage in legal proceedings to establish the mark’s validity. A failure to counter opposition may result in the mark being denied registration.
The acceptance of CHUTIYARAM has also drawn attention to other applications filed by the same applicant, Sadhna Goswami, who has sought to register marks such as Chutiyawale and Chutiyalal. These applications, however, were either objected to or refused, suggesting that the Trademark Registry has, in some cases, upheld restrictions on potentially offensive marks. This inconsistency in decision-making has raised concerns about the need for clearer guidelines and stricter oversight in trademark approvals.
As discussions around this decision continue, it remains to be seen whether the mark will face opposition or if the Trademark Registry will review its own stance in light of the controversy. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between commercial branding, legal compliance, and societal values in trademark registration.
