Applicant claims “CHUTIYARAM” mark registration was withdrawn due to media trial

The applicant who had sought registration of the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ has questioned the Trademark Registry's claim that the registration of the mark was initially accepted due to an error before it was withdrawn..In her written response filed before the Trademark Registry, the applicant Sadhna Goswami, alleged that the withdrawal of the registration by the registry was influenced by media pressure and a systemic bias against Hindi and vernacular languages.She also accused several media outlets including Bar & Bench of conducting a "reckless media trial" against the approved trademark and has claimed that the registry's withdrawal of the mark citing an error was a direct result of media pressure.“Media outlets wrongfully sensationalized the acceptance of the Mark despite the registry’s well-reasoned acceptance, various media organizations launched a targeted and unjustified campaign against the mark’s approval,” the response said.The applicant's lawyer Anil Yadav shared the applicant's response on LinkedIn..The Trademark Registry had initially accepted the application for registration of the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.On March 18, the Trademark Registry withdrew its acceptance of the mark, citing an error. The order stated the mark was open to objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, prompting a proposed withdrawal under Section 19, with a hearing scheduled..The withdrawal came two weeks after the initial acceptance and a day after its publication in the Trademark Journal. The approval sparked discussions among intellectual property law experts about the review process for potentially offensive marks. Initially, the examiner deemed ‘CHUTIYARAM’ a combination of arbitrary words and found it distinctive, with no direct reference to goods like namkeen and biscuits.However, concerns arose over its approval despite scrutiny under Section 9(2)(c), which prohibits scandalous or obscene trademarks. The mark was also accepted despite no representation in four hearings.Indian trademark law bars offensive, deceptive, or morally objectionable marks. Section 9(2)(c) specifically prohibits scandalous trademarks. Authorities assess potential controversy before approval. When a mark is “Accepted & Advertised,” it has cleared the initial review and is published in the Trademark Journal for public scrutiny..According to the applicant's response shared on LinkedIn, the term “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम” is a composite of two words: “Chutiya” (derived from “Choti,” meaning a sacred tuft of hair in Hinduism) and “Ram” (referring to Lord Rama, a revered deity in Hindu tradition). The mark, therefore, symbolizes spiritual and cultural heritage rather than any obscene connotation. According to the applicant, the sacred tuft of hair, or “Shikha,” is an integral part of Hindu rituals and traditions, emphasising the mark’s religious relevance.“The term “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम” in its entirety, therefore, conveys a deeply spiritual and cultural essence. It is not a slang term or an offensive expression but rather a respectful reference to sacred Hindu traditions,” the applicant has said..The withdrawal, without citing specific legal provisions, undermines the legal sanctity of the trademark application process, it was stated."The Registry, which is an autonomous statutory body, should function independently without bowing to external pressures," the applicant stated in the submissions..Further, the applicant also alleged systemic discrimination against Hindi and other vernacular languages by the Trademark registry. The registry's digital filing system lacks a module for Hindi word marks, forcing applicants to transliterate their marks into English, it was submitted."The Registry’s continued insistence on English as the primary language for word mark applications reflects a colonial hangover," the applicant contended. .In this regard, the applicant highlighted that the registry had previously approved trademarks with potentially offensive connotations, such as “BOOB,” “LAUDA,” and “PUSSY IN BOOTS.” Thus, the inconsistent treatment of “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम” violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, it was contended.In light of the above, the applicant has requested the registrar to:Reinstate the acceptance of the trademark “CHUTIYARAM चुटियाराम.”Recognize that the withdrawal was influenced by media pressure and not based on legal grounds.Uphold the sanctity of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and ensure that future decisions are free from external interference.Address systemic biases against Hindi and vernacular languages in the trademark registration process..[Read Response]