‘CHUTIYARAM’ mark was approved in error, Trademark Registry reverses decision

New Delhi: In a significant move, the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai has admitted that the acceptance of the ‘CHUTIYARAM’ mark was a mistake, stating that it was subject to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registry announced its intention to withdraw the approval under Section 19 of the Act and Rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and has scheduled a hearing to address the matter.

This reversal was made a day after the mark was published in the Trademark Journal. The approval triggered scrutiny and sparked debate, raising concerns about flaws in the review process and the legal risks and consequences of registering objectionable marks.

“The above-mentioned application was accepted through an error. The registration of the mark is open to objection on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria for registration under Section 9/11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, the Registrar proposes to withdraw the acceptance pursuant to Section 19 of the Act, read with Rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and has scheduled a hearing regarding the application," the order states.

The examiner had previously justified the acceptance by arguing that the mark combined two arbitrary words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram,’ making it distinctive and unrelated to the applied goods—namkeen and biscuits. However, as per legal experts, this was in violation of Section 9(2)(c) of the Act, which prohibits the registration of marks considered offensive or immoral.

Trademark laws in India bar trademarks that comprises scandalous or obscene matter.

Section 9(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that: A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if—
(a) it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion;
(b) it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India;
(c) it comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter;
(d) its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950).