Captain Cool: Trademarking Legends and the Rise of Athlete Brands in India

In India, cricket is not just a sport but rather an emotion that brings people together. The thrill of watching a cricket match isn’t only about the sport itself but is also deeply rooted in the passion of the fans and the charisma of the players who represent them. One such player is MS Dhoni, a name that holds a special place in the hearts of every cricket fan. Known for his calm demeanor under pressure and his strategic brilliance, the cricket legend has rightfully earned the nickname ‘Captain Cool’. On June 5, 2025, Dhoni took another significant step, this time off the field, and filed an application to trademark ‘Captain Cool’ aiming to officially turn it into his personal brand.

MS Dhoni’s trademark application for the ‘Captain Cool’ nickname was accepted and published on June 16, 2025, by the Trademarks Registry of Kolkata. But did securing the rights to ‘Captain Cool’ really come that easily for Dhoni? Let’s take a closer look.

Evolution of Athlete Branding in India

With the rise of social media and digital platforms, modern athletes are not only competing in their sports but also trying to gain the attention and support of a global audience. In the sports industry, personal branding means developing and maintaining a clear identity that reflects an athlete’s career and achievements. This helps athletes build a positive image, attract sponsorships and endorsement deals, and increase their reach and influence among fans.

To build a strong personal brand, athletes should recognize what sets them apart, share regular and interesting content, use different social media platforms, work with suitable brands, and make the most of endorsement opportunities as part of their marketing efforts.

In India, several high-profile examples highlight how athletes have effectively built and extended their personal brands. One such instance is when the Election Commission of India appointed cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar as a national icon to promote voter awareness, especially among the youth. Another powerful example is the rising trend of sports biopics, such as Mary Kom, MS Dhoni: The Untold Story, Dangal and Shabaash Mithu.^[1] These films not only celebrate the journeys of iconic athletes but also serve as strategic tools for personal branding. These branding efforts contribute to greater visibility, open up new opportunities for endorsements, and strengthen the athlete’s influence in both commercial and social spheres.

Case Study: MS Dhoni as a Brand

The former Indian cricket captain MS Dhoni filed an application for ‘Captain Cool’ with the Trademarks Registry in Kolkata under Class 41, covering services related to education, entertainment, training and sports activities. The application was accepted and subsequently published by the Kolkata Registry on June 16. Following the protocol, a 120-day opposition window was opened thereafter.

A law firm ‘KAnalysis Attorneys at Law’ formally filed opposition proceedings against Dhoni’s Application for trademarking ‘Captain Cool’, on multiple grounds including, lack of demonstrable prior use, and the commonly used nature of the terms included in the proposed mark. The Opposition, represented by Advocate Nilanshu Shekhar, argued that Dhoni's trademark application was originally filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis, but was subsequently amended to claim usage since 2008, allegedly without furnishing the necessary evidence such as affidavits, invoices, or promotional materials. In a comprehensive press statement, the firm raised concerns over the Registry's decision to accept the application, implying a lack of procedural diligence and transparency. The firm further argued that “Captain Cool” is a widely recognized nickname that has been commonly used by fans, commentators, and media to describe Dhoni’s calm demeanor on the field.  As such, the term is laudatory and descriptive in nature and does not meet the threshold for trademark distinctiveness.

The Opposition in the case stated “Awarding trademark protection to a phrase that has entered common public usage, without adequate proof of exclusive and continuous commercial use, could create a troubling precedent…” ^[2]   

This opposition also raised broader questions around personality-based branding and the limits of trademark protection for public figures. The case is now pending before the Indian Trademark Registry. A hearing date is expected to be scheduled in the coming months. 

Trademarking a Personality: What the law says

In India, personality rights are not coded under any specific statute, and their scope remains largely undefined in legislative terms. Broadly speaking, personality rights refer to the right of an individual to protect and control the commercial and public use of their image, name and other aspects of personal identity.

Personality rights are intrinsically connected to the right to privacy and are frequently regarded as falling within its broader ambit. These rights enable public figures and celebrities to prevent unauthorized exploitation of their identity for commercial gain or misleading endorsements.

Although not formally recognized under any specific law, the Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged personality rights as an extension of the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read along with the relevant intellectual property laws in force in India. For instance, in cases like Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr.^[3], the question was of unauthorized usage of the name ‘Gautam Gambhir’ by the Defendants in their restaurant. The Court decided against the Plaintiff, noting that there was no evidence of genuine consumer confusion, damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation, or any commercial misuse of the Plaintiff’s name by the Defendant. On the contrary, a famous example of the Court granting personality rights protection was in the case of Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.^[4], wherein the Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining various entities from using the Bollywood Star’s name, voice, or image without his consent for commercial purposes. The Court recognised the actor’s status and observed that it is essential to balance freedom of expression of others with Mr. Shroff’s rights to personality, publicity and moral integrity. Similarly, in the case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.^[5], while pronouncing the judgment in favour of the plaintiff the Court stated “reputation and fame can transcend into damaging various rights of a person including his right to livelihood, right to privacy, right to live with dignity within a social structure, etc. There can be no doubt that free speech in respect of a well-known person is protected in the form of right to information, news, satire, parody that is authentic, and also genuine criticism. However, when the same crosses a line, and results in tarnishment, blackening or jeopardises the individual’s personality, or attributes associated with the said individual, it would be illegal.” The court further stated that the “Plaintiff’s name, likeness, image, persona, etc., deserves to be protected, not only for Plaintiff’s own sake but also for the sake of his family and friends who would not like to see his image, name and other elements being misused, especially for such tarnishing and negative use.”

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding MS Dhoni’s trademark application for ‘Captain Cool’ underscores the gaps and ambiguities in India’s legal framework concerning personality rights and the trademarking of public personas. Currently, Indian law does not offer explicit statutory protection for personality rights. Instead, such claims are interpreted through a patchwork of constitutional provisions and intellectual property statutes, primarily the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This lack of codified law often results in inconsistent judicial outcomes, creating uncertainty for public figures seeking to protect their identity in commercial spaces.

The opposition to Dhoni’s application reveals key legal concerns, i.e. whether widely used or descriptive nicknames can be monopolized through trademark law, and what threshold of evidence is necessary to prove prior use or distinctiveness. The outcome of this case may well set a precedent on how athlete nicknames are treated under Indian trademark jurisprudence.

Looking ahead, India’s legal system must adapt to the commercial realities of modern sports and entertainment industries. As athletes increasingly engage in brand-building and influencer roles, there is a pressing need for a clearer and more uniform legal framework to govern personality rights. Until such reforms take shape, the legal road remains complex and uncertain for athletes seeking to safeguard and monetize their identities. Nevertheless, the growing number of such applications signals a shift, where public figures are no longer merely performers, but strategic brand owners navigating the intersections of law, commerce, and identity.

References:

[1] Building a Legacy: The Comprehensive Guide to Athlete Branding

[2] Cricketer MS Dhoni’s ‘captain cool’ trademark faces legal opposition - Sports News | The Financial Express

[3] 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10749

[4] CS(COMM) 384 of 2024

[5] CS(COMM) 652/2023 AND I.A. 18327/2013- 18243/2023