Not So Famous? TikTok’s Trademark Setback in India Signals Shifting Legal Winds

Introduction

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of TikTok Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr. upheld the rejection of TikTok’s application to classify its trademark as “well-known” under India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision, marked by the rustle of legal papers and the hum of digital debate, offers a glimpse into how the courts in India are weaving together intellectual property, national interest, and digital responsibility into a single, intricate tapestry. The Court in this matter has delivered a decision that quietly reverberates beyond the courtroom, touching the lives of business owners, tech enthusiasts, and everyday citizens across India and beyond. 

Background

Launched in 2017 in India, TikTok, the video-sharing platform danced its way into the hearts of millions, reaching 155 countries and 75 languages by 2019. Its innovative use of artificial intelligence to tailor content for users, combined with a surge in downloads that once outpaced giants like Facebook and YouTube, painted a picture of a global phenomenon. In India, where creativity thrives, TikTok had already secured registered trademark status, a foundational step in protecting its brand identity.

TikTok’s next step was to seek recognition as a “well-known” mark under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. This designation is more than a milestone—it’s a fortress of legal protection. A “well-known” mark enjoys broader safeguards, preventing others from using similar names or symbols, even in unrelated industries, due to its established recognition. For a brand like TikTok, with its vibrant global presence, this status promised to safeguard its identity in a crowded digital marketplace.

The company presented a compelling case to the Indian Trade Marks Registry, highlighting its widespread use, technological innovation, and existing registrations. It was a narrative of growth and influence, rooted in the app’s ability to connect people through short, expressive videos.

Yet, this journey hit a crossroads. Since 2020, TikTok has been absent from Indian shores, banned by the government under the Information Technology Act. The decision stemmed from concerns over national security and public order, including allegations of data privacy risks due to servers located outside India, instances of cyberbullying, and the circulation of altered or inappropriate content. This ban, still in place, became the lens through which the Registrar of Trade Marks viewed TikTok’s application.

The Registrar declined to grant “well-known” status, reasoning that a brand currently prohibited in India, with its operation deemed potentially harmful to national sovereignty and integrity, did not align with the criteria for such recognition. TikTok turned to the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Registrar’s decision overlooked key evidence of its global reach and cited incorrect legal provisions (Section 9 instead of the relevant Section 11). The company suggested the matter be reconsidered with a fresh perspective, emphasizing that the ban should not overshadow its brand’s inherent strength.

Decision

The Court’s decision reflected a thoughtful balance of law and context. The Court noted the Registrar’s error in referencing an irrelevant section but clarified that this alone did not undermine the decision. The focus shifted to the heart of the matter: could a trademark of a banned entity (mobile app) still qualify as “well-known”?

The answer lay in Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, which grants the Registrar flexibility to consider any relevant factor—not just popularity or duration of use—when evaluating a mark’s status. The ban, enacted under the Information Technology Act for reasons tied to national security and public welfare, emerged as a significant factor. The Court highlighted that while Section 11(9) clarifies that use in India is not a prerequisite for “well-known” status, the reasons behind the ban carried constitutional weight, aligning with India’s commitment to sovereignty and public order as outlined in its legal framework.

This decision illuminates a subtle yet profound distinction. A brand can be widely recognized worldwide without automatically earning “well-known” status in India. The ruling suggests that such recognition hinges not only on fame but also on a mark’s alignment with territorial laws, cultural values, and public acceptance. It’s a reminder that trademarks are as much about cultural resonance as they are about commercial success.

This decision casts a wide net, influencing businesses, consumers, and the legal landscape in equal measure. It reiterates the importance of navigating local regulations alongside global ambitions. A strong trademark portfolio is valuable, but it must coexist with compliance with national policies. Tech firms, in particular, may find themselves reevaluating data practices or content moderation to align with India’s digital governance standards.

For India’s legal system, this case marks a meaningful evolution. The Court’s invocation of constitutional principles—such as sovereignty and public interest—elevates trademark decisions beyond technicalities, embedding them within the nation’s broader ethos. This approach could influence future cases involving foreign brands or controversial sectors, encouraging a holistic review that includes ethical and policy dimensions. It also highlights the adaptability of Indian jurisprudence, blending traditional IP law with the realities of a digital age.

As of now Tiktok has not announced an appeal, but changes in the ban’s status or updates to its operational framework could prompt a future application. For now, the decision stands as the first of its kind milestone, inviting brands to consider how they engage with India’s dynamic market. 

Conclusion

This case is more than a legal footnote—it’s a narrative of balance. It tells of a nation weighing the vibrancy of global brands against the need to protect its people and principles. For businesses, it’s an invitation to adapt with care; for citizens, a testament to evolving digital stewardship; and for the law, a step toward a more integrated framework. This ruling can be viewed as a call to view trademarks not just as commercial assets, but as bridges—linking brands with responsibility and cultural resonance. India’s legal landscape continues to unfold at the intersection of technology, culture, and governance.

Reference:

TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar, Trade Marks, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 10 of 2024