“Chutiyaram” Trademark: Public Morality Vs. Legal Precedent
Once further Intellectual property law has set itself embedded at the centre of debate following the recent reception of the trademark “CHUTIYARAM” for a namkeen brand under the Class 30 nice bracket of the Trade Marks Act 1999, by the Delhi Trademark Office. This particular decision of the registry has upstretched a point of discussion among legal interpreters, commerce, and the general public. Considering Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, it putatively bypasses restrictions assessed, prohibiting the enrolment of libellous, stag, or innocently reprehensible trademarks. This blog will claw into the particulars of this case, the counteraccusations of the order, and the possible challenges that lie ahead during the opposition phase.
The Trademark Office’s Decision: A Legal Perspective
The registry accepted the enrolment operation by issuing an order in favour of CHUTIYARAM on March 4, 2025, despite the absenteeism of any representation for four hearings. The acceptance was justified by the examiner asserting that the mark is an admixture of two arbitrary words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram’, and it ipso facto concluded that the word mark is distinctive enough to be distinguished from other trademarks. Moreover, the order noted that the mark bears no direct reference to the applied goods—namkeen and biscuits—thereby waiving expostulations under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with the distinctness of trademarks. Still, the more burning concern remains: By what means did the mark manage to circumvent scrutiny under Section 9(2)(c), which explicitly bars trademarks that are stag or against public morality? The acceptance of CHUTIYARAM raises an abecedarian question about the norms and thickness followed by the Indian trademark registry while determining what constitutes an offensive and obnoxious mark.
The Role of Section 9(2)(c) in Trademark Law
Under Indian trademark law, expletives, obscenities, obnoxious, offensive words, or marks that breach public morality are not eligible for enrollment. Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, clearly states:
“A mark shall not be registered if it comprises or contains libellous or stag matter or its use is possible to hurt religious vulnerability of any class or section of the citizens of India.”
This clause aims to thwart the registration of marks that could be considered vulgar, obnoxious, or unhappy for public susceptibilities. The rejection of analogous operations similar to Chutiyawale and Chutiyalal advocates that the Trademark Registry has preliminarily upheld these restrictions. So what was the reason behind the acceptance of “CHUTIYARAM”?
One probable elucidation could be the apparent arbitrariness of the words Chuti and Ram. The examiner’s logic suggests that these words when combined, produce a distinctive mark that does not overtly violate moral or ethical norms. Still, this reasoning remains debatable, as the term in question is extensively regarded as a colloquial invective in the Hindi language.
Public Reaction and Implicit Opposition
When a trademark submission is classified as “Accepted & Advertised,” it means that the examiner has set up no expostulations or has resolved any enterprises during the original scrutiny. This does not mean that the trademark is inevitably granted; rather, it enters a four-month opposition period during which any third party can contest the registration.
Given the provocative nature of CHUTIYARAM, it is largely likely that individualities, businesses, or advocacy groups may file expostulations against its registration. Grounds for opposition could include:
- Violation of Public Morality: The mark could be supposed offensive and inappropriate for market use.
- Consumer Perception: If the mark is considered depreciatory or deceiving, it may not line up with ethical branding standards.
- Precedent and Consistency: Given that analogous marks were preliminarily rejected, allowing CHUTIYARAM could lead to legal discrepancies and potential legal challenges.
Should an opposition be filed, the applicant, Sadhna Goswami, will need to defend the mark’s legality and argue why it does not breach the law.
The Broader Counteraccusations for Trademark Law
The case highlights several crucial issues within India’s trademark registration framework:
- Inconsistencies in Examination Standards: The acceptance of CHUTIYARAM despite former rejections of similar marks raises questions about the prejudice of trademark examination. A further standardized approach is demanded to ensure fairness and pungency in opinions.
- Challenges in Defining Morality: Public perception of words and their meanings evolves. What may be measured offensive today might not hold the same undertone in the future. However, supervisory bodies must draw clear lines to avoid potentially offensive trademarks from being enrolled.
- Legal Precedents and Future Applications: If CHUTIYARAM proceeds to full registration, it may set a precedent for other contentious trademarks. This could either lead to more relaxed rules around descent marks or stricter scrutiny in unborn cases.
What Happens Next?
The registry later by its order mentioned that it was an erroneous acceptance and the registration open to objection as acceptance of the marks does not directly amount to registration within the meaning of 9 / 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registrar has further proposed to withdraw the acceptance following section 19 of the Act read with Rule 38 of the Trade Marks rules, 2017.
The registration application will result in enrollment of the trademark CHUTIYARAM if no opposition is filed within four months of its advertisement, and will proceed to full registration, culminating in the issuance of the Registration Certificate. Nevertheless, given the nature of the mark, it is likely that objections will arise. Legal proceedings will commence, necessitating both the applicant and opposing parties to present their opinions. A successful defence could affect the mark being officially registered, while failure to counter opposition may lead to its rejection.
The acceptance of CHUTIYARAM as a trademark under Class 30 has unlocked the door to intense debates on the boundaries of public morality, verbal interpretation, and legal thickness in India’s trademark registration process. While the examiner’s reasoning emphasizes distinctiveness, the broader implications of allowing such a mark cannot be ignored. As we await potential opposition filings, this case will serve as a pivotal test of India’s trademark laws and their capability to balance commercial interests with societal morals. Whether CHUTIYARAM eventually secures registration or faces legal hurdles, it has incontrovertibly sparked a necessary discussion on the evolving landscape of intellectual property law in India.
Final Thoughts
The case of CHUTIYARAM explains the complications involved in trademark registration, particularly when artistic, cultural and linguistic factors come into play. Regardless of the outcome, this incident accentuates the need for a more transparent and harmonious approach to assessing and evaluating trademarks in India.
Will this case lead to a re-evaluation of what constitutes an offensive and obnoxious mark? Or will it set a precedent for more unconventional trademarks to make their way into the marketplace and business? Only time will tell.
Author: Saumya Shukla, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
References
- Trademarks Act, 1999.
- Trademarks rules, 2017.
- ‘Trade Marks Registry Accepts “Chutiyaram” Mark for Namkeen and Biscuits Company’ Bar & Bench (Online, 2025) https://www.barandbench.com/news/trade-marks-registry-accepts-chutiyaram-mark-for-namkeen-and-biscuits-company accessed [ 18 March, 2025]
- ‘Trade Marks Registry Accepts “Chutiyaram” for Biscuits Company, Does U-Turn’ NDTV (Online, 2025) https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/trademark-namkeen-trade-marks-registry-accepts-chutiyaram-for-biscuits-company-does-u-turn-7953341 accessed [18 March, 2025].
- ‘Trade Marks Clears “Chutiyaram” Mark for Namkeen Brand, Then Withdraws: Report’ Hindustan Times (Online, 2025) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/trade-marks-clears-chutiyaram-mark-for-namkeen-brand-then-withdraws-report-101742307121829.html accessed [18 March 2025].
