Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking inclusion of the trade mark “TikTok” in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017. The Court upheld the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, affirming that the ongoing Government ban on the TikTok application constituted a relevant factor in refusing the claim. The Court concluded that the Registrar acted within the scope of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that no error could be attributed to the impugned decision.

The petitioner, a technology company operating a globally known social media application under the trade mark “TikTok”, filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking inclusion of its mark in the list of well-known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017. TikTok, registered in India, is a mobile application facilitating the creation and sharing of short-form videos. It was launched globally in 2017 and claimed widespread recognition, having been made available in over 150 markets and 75 languages by 2019.

Also Read: Right To Do Business Includes Right To Shut Down | Supreme Court Upholds Article 19(1)(g) Protection

In its submission, the petitioner referred the widespread popularity and usage of the TikTok application, including surpassing download numbers of other major social media platforms. The company argued that it had furnished detailed supporting materials to establish its trade mark’s reputation and fulfillment of the criteria under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

However, on 31st October 2023, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application. The impugned order cited the Government of India's decision to ban the TikTok application, characterizing it as prejudicial to national sovereignty, integrity, and public order. The decision referenced press releases and media reports detailing the grounds for the ban.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without due application of mind, asserting that it relied on external press material and incorrectly cited Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, which was irrelevant to the well-known mark determination. The petitioner maintained that Section 11 alone governed the procedure and criteria for such determination.

The petitioner also argued that the ban was not a permanent status and could not be a valid ground for denial. It highlighted the absence of engagement with the statutory considerations under Section 11(6) to 11(9) of the Trade Marks Act and submitted that the Registrar's failure to address the petitioner’s evidence invalidated the impugned order.

On the contrary, counsel for the respondent asserted that the order was valid and that the Registrar was permitted to consider all relevant facts, including the ban imposed on the application. It was submitted that the statutory criteria under Section 11(6) were illustrative, not exhaustive, and that the Registrar was justified in taking into account broader public interest implications stemming from the ban.

The Court recorded that “Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules specifies in sub-Rule (2) that while determining the trade mark as well known, the Registrar shall take into account the provisions of sub-Sections (6) to (9) of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.”

It noted, “Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act provides that a Registrar shall take into account any fact that he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well known trade mark.” The Court underscored that the listed factors in clauses (i) to (v) were “obviously illustrative in nature and... not exhaustive.”

The judgment acknowledged that the Registrar had referred to public domain material indicating “the application TikTok being found to be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order.” The Court found that this material formed a legitimate basis for evaluation under the relevant statutory framework.

Further, the Court stated, “The said respondent also referred to certain instances indicating that pictures of some women and girls downloaded from TikTok were found to be morphed and that there were cases of cyber bullying and sexually explicit context.”

It concluded that “these are serious matters, which cannot be ignored” and accepted that the Registrar was entitled to take such concerns into account. It affirmed that the “ban imposed by the Government of India... is indeed a relevant fact taken into consideration by the Registrar.”

The Court clarified that while the trade mark remains registered and protected, “inclusion in the list of well known marks obviously gives added protection to a mark,” and that in the context of the continuing ban, “no error can be attributed to the said respondent.”

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the respondent—refusing the application for inclusion of the petitioner’s trade mark “TikTok” in the list of well-known marks—was legally sustainable.

The Court found that due consideration had been given by the Registrar to the relevant statutory provisions and contextual factors. It specifically recorded that the reasons for the Government of India’s ban on the TikTok application were based on concerns relating to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence and public order, and these were matters of serious constitutional and national significance which could not be disregarded.

The Court acknowledged that although the TikTok trade mark remains registered in India and thus continues to enjoy statutory protection, inclusion in the list of well-known marks is a distinct and additional recognition, not automatically available by virtue of registration alone.

Also Read: Orissa High Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife’s Cruel Remarks On Husband’s Disability | Calling Him ‘Kempa, Nikhatu’ Amounts To Mental Cruelty

It was observed that in the context of the ongoing and unrevoked ban on the application by competent authorities, the decision of the Registrar to deny the mark such elevated status could not be faulted.

Justice Manish Pitale therefore concluded that the respondent had exercised its authority within the framework of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that no procedural or substantive infirmity was found in the impugned decision. On that basis, the Court dismissed the petition with the express pronouncement:

“In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Swati Mittal (through V.C.) a/w Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Abhai Pandey, Ms. Anju Agrawal, Mr. Gautam Kumar, Ms. Ritika Agrawal, Ms. Paulome Metha, Mr. Shubhankar Sharma and Mr. Ishvendra Tiwari i/by Sonal Doshi & Co.

For the Respondents: Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh (through V.C.) a/w Ms. Leena Patil and Ms. V. Deshmukh

Case Title: TikTok Limited Faheem Ahmad Constituted Attorney of TikTok Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8466

Case Number: COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 10 OF 2024

Bench: Justice Manish Pitale

[Read/Download order]