TikTok Trademark Ban Upheld: India’s IP Law Aligns with Sovereignty Concerns 

Introduction 

In a noteworthy decision, the Bombay High Court declined to recognize TikTok as a well-known trademark in India, despite its global popularity. The ruling raises critical legal questions about the intersection of public policy—such as national security bans—and the statutory criteria under the Trademarks Act, 1999 for conferring enhanced protection to trademarks 

Facts 

• TikTok Pvt. Ltd. applied in October 2023 for “well-known trademark” status under Rule 124 of the Trademark Rules, 2017. 

• The Registrar of Trademarks rejected the application, citing India’s 2020 ban on TikTok under the Information Technology Act, and concerns including data privacy, cybersecurity, cyberbullying, and non-transparent server locations. 

• TikTok challenged this refusal in the Bombay High Court, arguing the Registrar failed to apply Section 11(6)’s factors and mistakenly relied on Section 9, which pertains only to registration refusals. 

Issues 

• Can public policy concerns—like a ban—be considered a “relevant fact” under Section 11(6)? 

• Is reliance on Section 9 legally permissible when determining well‑known status? 

• Should non-use due to a ban (denotative via Section 11(9)) disqualify a mark from being well-known? 

• Do extrinsic factors such as public policy opinions fall within the statutory “any fact” discretion? 

Arguments 

TikTok (Applicant) 

• Asserted that the Registrar errantly invoked Section 9, which is not applicable to well-known status. 

• Claimed the Registrar ignored mandatory Section 11(6) factors—public recognition, duration, geographical reach, promotion efforts, and enforcement record. 

• Emphasized that its Indian user base (200+ million in 2020) demonstrates clear public recognition. 

• Argued that the ban is a temporary policy measure, not a bar under Section 11(9), which precludes non-use from disqualifying well-known status. 

Registrar of Trademarks (Respondent) 

• Opposed remand, citing the Registrar’s discretion under Section 11(6) to consider “any fact which he considers relevant,” including the ban. 

• Held that Section 11(6) is non-exclusive; hence, normative considerations like national security, sovereignty, data privacy, even morality, are valid inputs. 

• Argued that Section 11(9) does not override the Registrar’s discretion to weigh the full context, including executive bans. 

Judgment 

The Bombay High Court, led by Justice Manish Pitale, ruled: 

• Though reliance on Section 9 was mistaken, it did not warrant setting aside the order. 

• Under Section 11(6) and Rule 124, the Registrar is empowered to consider “any fact,” including policy bans and national security risks. 

• The Court found it appropriate that concerns over national integrity, data privacy, cyberbullying, etc., were relevant and legitimately influenced the denial. 

• Consequently, TikTok’s request was dismissed, withholding enhanced “well-known” status, though ordinary trademark registration remains intact. 

Conclusion 

The Bombay High Court’s decision in TikTok Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademark highlights the notable shift in Indian trademark jurisprudence, where national security and public policy can override traditional markers of brand recognition. While within statutory bounds, the ruling injects subjectivity into well-known status determinations, creating potential instability for foreign brands. Without legislative recalibration, expect increased legal ambiguity and procedural challenges in future well-known mark bids.