{"id":350599,"date":"2025-06-13T19:00:29","date_gmt":"2025-06-13T13:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350599"},"modified":"2025-06-19T09:53:45","modified_gmt":"2025-06-19T04:23:45","slug":"bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","title":{"rendered":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> The petitioner challenged the order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Respondent 1-Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby an application for inclusion of the registered trade mark ‘TikTok’ in the list of well-known marks, was refused. Manish Pitale<\/span>, J., affirmed the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse inclusion of ‘TikTok’, a registered trade mark in the list of “well-known” under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017<\/a> (‘2017 Rules’) as there was nationwide ban imposed on the petitioner’s application ‘TikTok’ by the Government of India pertaining to sovereignty and integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The petitioner was a technology company managing a diverse portfolio of content platforms along with a mobile application with the mark ‘TikTok’. The petitioner initiated a proceeding under Rule 124 of 2017 Rules for inclusion of the mark ‘TikTok’ in the list of well-known marks but the same was refused by Respondent 1 by order dated 31-10-2023. Respondent 1 stated that the application TikTok was found to be controversial by the Government of India and was banned in India, as the said application was found to be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. Thus, the present petition was filed challenging the respondent’s order dated 31-10-2023.<\/p>\n

The petitioner argued that Respondent 1’s refusal was based only on news reports and press releases about the TikTok ban and had not applied its mind. It was submitted that Respondent 1 wrongly referred to Section 9<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a>, which relates to absolute grounds for refusal of registration and did not refer to Section 11 which was relevant, because it relates to the recognition of well-known marks.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court referred to the 1999 Act and 2017 Rules and opined that while considering such an application as filed by the petitioner, Respondent 1 was required to consider the requirements of Section 11(6) to (9)<\/a> of 1999 Act<\/a>. The Court opined that the impugned order did not refer to Section 11(6) to (9) and instead referred to Section 9 which was not relevant for considering the application filed by the petitioner. But the Court stated that this itself could not be a ground to set aside the impugned order.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that Respondent 1 considered various materials which comprised of controversy regarding the application ‘TikTok’ and the press release issued by the Government of India banning the application ‘TikTok’ along with other applications. The Court stated that Respondent 1 was entitled to consider a fact which was not mentioned in Section 11(6)(i)<\/a> to 11(6)(v)<\/a> of 1999 Act<\/a>, while considering the application filed under Rule 124 for inclusion of the trade mark in the list of well-known marks.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Respondent 1 found the petitioner’s trade mark ‘TikTok’ to be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order and that the Government of India exercised power under the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a> and the Rules framed thereunder, for imposing such a ban.<\/p>\n

The Court also noted that Respondent 1 had found material which showed that ban imposed on TikTok was due to concerns for data privacy of users and that its servers were located in China. Further, there were cases of cyber bullying and sexually explicit context and instances where pictures of some women and girls were downloaded from TikTok were found to be morphed.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that merely because the ban on certain other applications was lifted, it could not be a ground for the petitioner to claim that the impugned order was rendered erroneous.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that Section 11(6)<\/a> of 1999 Act<\/a> gave power to Respondent 1 to take into consideration any fact that he considered relevant for determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that since the mark was already a registered trade mark in India, it did enjoy all statutory protection available under the 1999 Act, but inclusion in the list of well-known marks would obviously give added protection to a mark. Thus, the Court held that Respondent 1 acted rightfully in refusing the petitioner’s request considering that the application TikTok itself was banned in India, which till date admittedly had not been set aside by any Competent Court or Authority.<\/p>\n

[TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2323<\/a>, decided on 10-6-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the petitioner:<\/span> Swati Mittal (through V.C.) a\/w Manisha Singh, Abhai Pandey, Anju Agrawal, Gautam Kumar, Ritika Agrawal, Paulome Metha, Shubhankar Sharma and Ishvendra Tiwari i\/by Sonal Doshi & Co.<\/p>\n

For the respondents:<\/span> Yashodeep Deshmukh (through V.C.) a\/w Leena Patil and V. Deshmukh; Pranjal Sharma and Ankit Sharma, Examiner of Trade Marks present.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The mark ‘TikTok’ is already a registered trade mark in India and enjoys all statutory protection available under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but its inclusion in the list of well-known marks, will obviously give added protection to a mark.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,83473,67752,53386,42710,59577,83474],"class_list":["post-350599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-commercial-miscellaneous-petition","tag-justice-manish-pitale","tag-registered-trade-mark","tag-tiktok","tag-trade-mark-act","tag-trade-mark-rules-2017"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC: No well-known mark status to TikTok |SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":785,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"commercial miscellaneous petition\",\"Justice Manish Pitale\",\"registered trade mark\",\"TikTok\",\"Trade Mark act\",\"Trade Mark Rules 2017\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC: No well-known mark status to TikTok |SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/02\\\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/13\\\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay HC: No well-known mark status to TikTok |SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling","datePublished":"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/"},"wordCount":785,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","keywords":["Bombay High Court","commercial miscellaneous petition","Justice Manish Pitale","registered trade mark","TikTok","Trade Mark act","Trade Mark Rules 2017"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","name":"Bombay HC: No well-known mark status to TikTok |SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-13T13:30:29+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-19T04:23:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that TikTok's nationwide ban was a ground sufficient for refusing well-known status to the mark 'TikTok'.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":352720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/08\/legal-roundup-intellectual-property-right-roundup-june-2025-copyright-infringement-trade-mark-infringement-scc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":0},"title":"INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ROUNDUP: A quick recap of the latest Intellectual Property Rights rulings from June 2025.","author":"Editor","date":"July 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Covering all the important intellectual property rights cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in intellectual property rights and links to other roundups.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights Roundup June 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350789,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/17\/bomhc-quashes-order-rejecting-wr-trade-mark-to-yamaha\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":1},"title":"Bombay HC quashes order refusing \u2018WR\u2019 trade mark to Yamaha for similarity with Honda\u2019s \u2018WR-V\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Acknowledging the principle of territoriality, prior use in international jurisdictions, the registration obtained for the subject mark \u2018WR\u2019 in such territorial jurisdictions and other relevant materials produced by Yamaha, the Court directed fresh review of the application.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340141,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/31\/bomhc-directs-registration-of-khadis-device-mark-prakritik-paint-for-cow-dung-paints\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":2},"title":"Bombay HC directs Registry to register Khadi\u2019s device mark \u201cPRAKRITIK PAINT\u201d in respect of cow dung based paints","author":"Simranjeet","date":"January 31, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is openly using the subject device mark in the context of its goods in the public domain and the Registrar completely ignored these documents while passing the impugned order.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Khadi device mark Prakritik paint","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Khadi-device-mark-Prakritik-paint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Khadi-device-mark-Prakritik-paint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Khadi-device-mark-Prakritik-paint.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Khadi-device-mark-Prakritik-paint.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277576,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/16\/application-for-registration-of-trade-mark-brazzers-to-proceed-for-advertisement-on-the-claim-of-the-mark-being-proposed-to-be-used-delhi-high-court-directs\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":3},"title":"Application for registration of trade mark \u201cBRAZZERS\u201d to proceed for advertisement on the claim of the mark being \u201cproposed to be used\u201d; Delhi High Court directs","author":"Editor","date":"November 16, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: While deciding a case in which an appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Senior Examiner), wherein the application of the appellant seeking registration of its mark \u201cBRAZZERS\u201d in Class 35 was rejected, the Single Judge Bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"competitive exam","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278897,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/01\/delhi-high-court-directs-registrar-of-trade-marks-to-add-bukhara-mark-to-the-list-of-well-known-trade-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court directs Registrar of Trade Marks to add \u2018BUKHARA’ mark to the list of \u2018well-known trade marks’","author":"Editor","date":"December 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case filed by ITC Ltd. seeking protection of the trade mark \u2018BUKHARA', the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. declared \u2018BUKHARA' as a well-known trade mark under Section 2(zg) read with Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and directed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":309047,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/12\/madras-high-court-directs-registrar-notify-mark-royal-enfield-register-well-known-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":350599,"position":5},"title":"[Trade mark infringement] Madras High Court directs Registrar to notify the mark \u2018Royal Enfield\u2019 in register of well-known marks","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that in respect of the motorcycle industry, the trade mark \u2018Royal Enfield\u2019 is well-known, not only in India, but also in abroad. Their annual reports also prove that their turnover runs into several hundreds of crores of rupees and they have carved a niche for themselves\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350599\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}