Introduction
Trademarks are essential identifiers for businesses, representing brand identity and consumer trust. However, not all trademarks are deemed fit for registration. In India, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, under Section 9(2)(c), prohibits the registration of trademarks that contain scandalous or obscene matter. While this provision aims to uphold public morality, the subjective nature of “obscenity” often leads to legal debates and inconsistent rulings. This article explores the legal framework, recent controversies, and landmark judgments shaping the treatment of obscene trademarks in India and beyond.
Legal Framework: Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, states that a trademark shall not be registered if it contains scandalous or obscene matter. However, the law does not provide a clear definition of “obscenity,” leaving its interpretation to courts and trademark authorities.
Obscenity is often assessed based on community standards and evolving societal values. What may be considered offensive in one era or region may not be perceived the same way in another. As a result, trademark examiners and courts must evaluate trademarks on a case-by-case basis, balancing commercial freedom with public morality.
Recent Cases of Obscene and Offensive Trademarks
1. The ‘CHUTIYARAM’ Trademark Controversy
In March 2025, the Indian Trade Marks Registry faced criticism for initially accepting the trademark application for “CHUTIYARAM”, a Hindi slang term considered offensive. The approval was later revoked after public backlash, with authorities citing Section 9(2)(c) as the reason for rejection. This incident highlights the difficulty in pre-screening offensive trademarks and the importance of cultural sensitivity in trademark approvals.
2. The Myntra Logo Controversy
In 2021, fashion e-commerce giant Myntra was accused of using an “obscene” logo. A complaint was filed alleging that the stylized ‘M’ in the logo resembled a woman with her legs spread apart, making it offensive towards women. Myntra, in response, altered the logo to address the concerns. While the case did not involve a direct trademark rejection, it demonstrated the power of public sentiment in shaping brand identity.
3. The ‘Bharat Mata’ Painting Case
While not a trademark dispute, the Maqbool Fida Husain v. Raj Kumar Pandey case sheds light on obscenity laws in India. In this case, renowned artist M.F. Husain faced legal challenges over his painting “Bharat Mata,” which depicted a nude woman representing Mother India. The court ruled that nudity does not automatically amount to obscenity unless it is lascivious or appeals to prurient interests. This principle is often considered when evaluating whether a trademark is truly obscene.
4. The ‘FOOK’ Trademark Case (UK)
In the UK, an application for the word mark “FOOK” was rejected on the grounds that it could cause outrage among a significant section of the public. This case illustrates the global challenges of balancing freedom of expression with public morality in trademark registrations.
Landmark Judgment: Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)
In the Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal case, the Supreme Court of India abandoned the Hicklin test (which judged obscenity based on isolated content) and adopted the community standards test. This test evaluates material in its entirety, considering contemporary societal norms. The decision reflects a progressive shift, emphasizing context and intent over isolated interpretation.
This judgment serves as a guiding principle for cases involving obscene trademarks, urging authorities to assess trademarks holistically rather than focusing solely on a single offensive element.
Challenges in Determining Obscenity in Trademarks
- Subjectivity and Cultural Differences – What is offensive in one culture may be acceptable in another.
- Evolving Societal Norms – Community standards change over time, making it difficult to establish fixed rules.
- Inconsistent Rulings – The lack of clear judicial guidelines results in unpredictable decisions.
- Balancing Commercial Interests and Public Morality – Businesses seek attention-grabbing trademarks, but authorities must prevent offensive branding.
The prohibition of obscene trademarks aims to maintain public decency while allowing businesses to exercise creativity. However, the lack of clear legal definitions and evolving societal standards make the enforcement of Section 9(2)(c) a challenging task. Moving forward, trademark authorities and courts must develop more consistent and transparent guidelines to navigate the fine line between commercial expression and public morality.
As India and other nations continue to grapple with this issue, the debate over what constitutes an “obscene” trademark will remain an ongoing legal and ethical challenge in trademark law.
Source:
1. https://www.barandbench.com/news/trade-marks-registry-accepts-chutiyaram-mark-for-namkeen-and-biscuits-company
2. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1406192/a-judicial-overview-of-obscene-and-offensive-trademarks
3. https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/2024-04/Scandalous%20and%20obscene_EIPR%2046%284%29.pdf
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/