In a large case involving the global technological platform TikTok, the Bombay High Court addressed complex legal and constitutional issues that arise in determining what “well-known trademarks” are under Indian law.
Although the fame of TikTok is relatively high in the global arena, the Registrar of Trade Marks refused to accept TikTok as a well-known trademark in India. The case reveals that intellectual property rights can in certain situations stand in the way of regulatory discretion as well as the nationwide interests.
The Case’s Background and Facts
On October 31, 2023, TikTok Limited petitioned against an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. This order rejected the application to include the trademark Tik Tok in the official registry of well-known trademarks according to Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
The Indian government banned the app on grounds that it was perceived to threaten the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. It is due to this reason that this application was denied despite the fact that TikTok is a registered trade mark in India and is renowned all over the world.
TikTok is a brief video-hosting platform that began in 2017 and at once gained popularity across the globe. It is present in 155 countries and 75 languages. It surpassed Facebook and Instagram in terms of downloads in India until it was prohibited in June 2020 under the Information Technology Act due to concerns relating to national security, data privacy, and threat to public order.
Legal Requirements
The principal issue in the case was the manner in which Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, could be interpreted along with Sections 11(6) to 11(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar can determine in aspect to Rule 124.
whether or not a trademark qualifies as a well-known trademark. Sections 11(6) and (7) enumerate other things that affect the trademark, such how well-known it is, how widely it is used, how well it is promoted, and how well its rights are enforced. Section 11(9) makes it clear that previous usage or registration in India is not necessary to find out whether a mark is well-known.
TikTok’s Arguments
TikTok said that the Assistant Registrar didn’t use the legal test that Section 11 says they should have. The order was mostly based on news stories and a press release on the government’s ban. It did not look at the evidence that showed the mark was well-known throughout the world and had a lot of users.
The lawyer representing TikTok said that the restriction should be considered as transitory and that it can’t be more important than the trademark’s public awareness, which is a vital point under Section 11(6). They also said that using Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act in the order in question was an obvious mistake since it doesn’t apply to decisions made under Rule 124.
The Registrar’s Reasoning
On the other hand, the Registrar justified the decision by saying that the application’s prohibition in India because of national interest was a legitimate and significant reason under Section 11(6), which lets the Registrar look at “any fact he considers relevant.
” They said that the worries about how TikTok works, such as claims of data exploitation, shortcomings in content monitoring, and links to cyberbullying, deemed it unworthy for special protection as a well-known trademark.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court agreed with the Registrar’s choice. The Court agreed that the order in question did not specifically quote provision 11(6) to (9), but it did take into account circumstances that are pertinent to the provision.
The court made it clear that the list of circumstances in Section 11(6) is not complete; it is just meant to be an example. Because of this, the Registrar was entitled to cite national security and public order as grounds to deny the application.
The Court also said that the presence of a prohibition, particularly one based on constitutional issues like sovereignty and public order, was a serious enough reason to deny the extra protection that comes with classifying a mark as “well-known.
Although TikTok remains a registered trademark in India and continues to enjoy legal protection, a popular brand must achieve greater level of legal and moral acceptability.
Conclusively, the law and the national interest have a thin separating line.
The decision is a reminder that even as the intellectual property rights are acknowledged worldwide, they should be interpreted in the context of the local legislation and constitutional standards..
The TikTok verdict finds a middle ground between India’s right to protect national security and the rights of businesses to protect their brands. It says again that being recognized as a well-known trademark is not a right, but a privilege that must be looked at in the country’s larger legal and moral context.
The issue also brings up a bigger question of how much non-commercial elements like geopolitics, digital ethics, and public opinion can or should affect trademark recognition.
In the end, it says that even if worldwide achievement may generate renown, local laws decide how much legal protection such celebrity has. The decision sets an example for how nations like India may follow their constitutional duties even when global business interests are at stake.
