In the immediate aftermath of a national tragedy, symbols and words take on lives of their own. They become vessels of grief, unity, resistance and memory. One such phrase i.e. “Operation Sindoor”, was recently etched into public consciousness following India’s military retaliation against cross-border terrorism in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Intended as a mark of strategic response and homage to fallen civilians and soldiers, the name is now at the heart of a far-reaching legal and ethical controversy that has exposed critical lacunae in India’s trade mark regime.
The controversy arose when, shortly after the Government of India publicly announced the name of the operation, multiple trade mark applications were filed seeking exclusive commercial rights over the term “Operation Sindoor”. These applications were largely filed under Class 41, covering entertainment, cultural, media, and educational services, prompting intense backlash and a recently filed public interest litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court.
But the issue at hand extends well beyond one PIL or a handful of trade mark filings. It raises a fundamental question: Should names associated with national military operations particularly those evoking public emotion, sacrifice, and State action be subject to private appropriation through intellectual property law?
The legal landscape: Trademarking names of national significance
At the center of the legal debate lies Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 19991, which outlines absolute grounds for refusal of registration. Section 9(2)(b) specifically bars the registration of marks that:
‘it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India.’
Though this provision speaks directly to religious sentiments, courts have, in past cases, interpreted it broadly to include public morality and decency as a ground for exclusion. Section 9(1)(a), moreover, excludes marks that lack distinctiveness; a likely barrier for generic or descriptive names, particularly those originating from government declarations.
That the names of military operations arguably fall into this category. They are State-authored designations, created not for commerce but for strategic communication. They exist in the public domain, often announced through official press releases, and instantly take on national significance. Their purpose is not to function as commercial signifiers but as historical and political reference points.
In this context, a commercial entity’s claim to such a term under the guise of brand-building risks being seen as misappropriation of State property or public sentiment, both of which have been treated cautiously by Indian courts.
Precedent and comparative jurisprudence
India lacks a formal legal framework akin to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 19502, when it comes to military operations; though the 1950 Act prohibits registration of names like “President of India”, “Ashoka Chakra, or “Government of India” for private enterprise.
In other jurisdictions, Government and military names are rigorously protected. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) routinely rejects trade marks for active military operation names such as “Desert Storm” or “Enduring Freedom”, citing grounds of being Government originated and therefore non-proprietary. Additionally, such marks are often viewed as deceptive or contrary to public policy when used for commercial purposes.
India, however, has no explicit rule preventing trade mark registration of military terms unless challenged through opposition or public interest litigation. This regulatory vacuum creates a dangerous precedent where a military term still in public use can be sequestered by private actors for commercial deployment such as in movies, web series, merchandise, or infotainment campaigns.
Cultural and ethical dimensions
Beyond the law lies a more profound terrain: The cultural ethics of naming and appropriation.
“Operation Sindoor” resonates deeply within Indian society because of its dual symbolism; military resistance and feminine sacrifice. The word “sindoor”, traditionally linked to marital fidelity and widowhood, has been employed metaphorically to highlight the cost borne by women whose spouses become martyrs. Its use as a military code name is thus not just symbolic, but emotionally charged, making any attempt to commercialise it potentially offensive.
When corporate entities attempt to co-opt such terms for media or entertainment ventures, they risk undermining the symbolic weight of national trauma. Public outcry over Reliance’s now withdrawn application demonstrates how strongly citizens feel about the sanctity of such terms. To the average citizen, such trade mark applications appear less as routine business filings and more as insensitive profiteering on the nation’s grief.
The need for a “protected names” doctrine in IP law
The current controversy illustrates the urgent need for a coherent policy framework to govern use of names that are intimately tied to national events or identity.
One possible solution is the creation of a “prohibited list” of terms similar to the Schedule under the 1950 Act which would include:
(a) Names of ongoing or past military operations.
(b) Natural disasters or public tragedies (e.g. “Uttarakhand floods”, “Pulwama attack”).
(c) Titles of State campaigns or initiatives (e.g. “Swachh Bharat Abhiyan”, “Make in India”).
Such lists could be maintained by the Ministry of Commerce in consultation with the Ministries of Defence, Home Affairs and Culture. Trademark examiners could be instructed to suo motu reject applications that infringe upon national dignity or collective trauma thus, placing public sentiment ahead of private commerce.
Conclusion: The commercialisation of memory
The attempt to trade mark “Operation Sindoor” may have arisen from business strategy or brand opportunism, but its broader impact highlights a moral blind spot in India’s IP ecosystem. As India continues to modernise its intellectual property regime, it must also grapple with the cultural and ethical implications of what can and should be commodified.
In an age where brand visibility often trumps sensitivity, the debate around Operation Sindoor offers a necessary pause. It invites the nation to reconsider not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of remembrance and restraint that must govern how we treat symbols of sacrifice.
*Advocate, New Delhi. Author can be reached at: advocate.stutibisht@gmail.com.
1. Trade Marks Act, 1999, S. 9.
2. Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
