Trademark

Bill Belichick, Jordon Hudson File “Gold Digger” Trademark

by

Former NFL coach Bill Belichick and his partner Jordon Hudson have filed for a trademark on the phrase “Gold Digger”, aiming to launch a jewelry and keychain line. The move, made through Hudson’s company Trouble Cub Enterprises, has raised eyebrows for its cheeky play on public perception.

A Pattern of Bold Trademarks

This is not Hudson’s first attempt at creative branding. Earlier, she applied for phrases tied to Belichick’s coaching career, adding the suffix “(Bill’s Version)” to slogans such as “Do Your Job” and “No Days Off”. The approach mirrors singer Taylor Swift’s re-recording strategy, but trademark experts note that many of these filings may face opposition from the New England Patriots, who already own rights to those phrases.

The “Gold Digger” filing, however, takes a different route. It leans less on sports legacy and more on irony, aiming to turn a controversial label into a profitable business identity.

Similar Trademark Gambits in India

India has witnessed several unconventional and controversial trademark filings, where personal branding, cultural sensitivity, and commercial ambition collided:

  • Reliance’s “Operation Sindoor”: Reliance Jio Studios filed a trademark referencing India’s military strikes. The move was met with backlash for commercializing a sensitive event, forcing the company to withdraw the application.
  • Dhoni’s “Captain Cool”: Former cricket captain MS Dhoni reportedly filed for his nickname as a trademark, sparking buzz and jokes about potential merchandise.
  • Odisha’s Jagannath Temple Terms: The Odisha government sought to trademark phrases linked to the Jagannath Temple in Puri, to prevent misuse of religious and cultural heritage.
  • “Chutiyaram” Rejection: A provocative slang-based application was revoked by the Trademark Office for obscenity.

The Bigger Picture

These cases, in the U.S. and India alike, reveal how trademarks are no longer just about products. They have become tools of personal identity, pop culture, and public relations. From Dhoni protecting his cricketing aura to Hudson reclaiming a controversial label, each filing pushes the boundaries of what can be owned and monetized.

Trademark experts caution that while such applications grab attention, they often face legal hurdles and public backlash. Yet, they highlight a clear trend: branding today is as much about narrative as it is about law.

Operation Sindoor’ Trademark Bids Rejected Amid Public Backlash and Legal Concerns

by

In a significant move, the Indian government has rejected multiple trademark applications filed for the term “Operation Sindoor”. These applications, submitted shortly after India’s cross-border military action in May 2025, sparked widespread public outrage and legal scrutiny.

🔺 Background: What Is Operation Sindoor?

Operation Sindoor refers to a military operation launched by India on May 7, 2025, targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The action came after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 people, including security personnel and civilians.

The codename quickly became a symbol of national pride and military valor. However, its use in trademark filings triggered criticism for trying to commercialize a sensitive national event.

Learn more about India’s military operations.

📝 Trademark Race Begins

On the same day as the operation, at least four trademark applications for “Operation Sindoor” were filed with the Indian Trademark Registry under Class 41. This class includes services such as film production, education, and entertainment.

The applicants included:

  • Reliance Industries (Jio Studios)
  • A retired Air Force officer
  • A Mumbai-based lawyer
  • An individual from the entertainment industry

Class 41 under Indian Trademark Law

🛑 Reliance Withdraws Application

Facing public outrage, Reliance Industries swiftly withdrew its application. On May 8, 2025, the company clarified that the filing was inadvertent and made by a junior employee without authorization.

“Reliance has no intention to use or commercialize a term that reflects the courage and sacrifice of our armed forces,” the company said in a public statement.

Read the full Reliance withdrawal statement here.

⚖️ Government Rejects All Applications

On August 1, 2025, the Commerce and Industry Ministry confirmed in the Rajya Sabha that all applications related to “Operation Sindoor” were formally rejected.

This decision was based on:

  • Section 9(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars marks that offend public sentiment
  • The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, which prohibits using military names for private gains

View the Trade Marks Act, 1999
View the Emblems and Names Act, 1950

🔊 Public and Legal Reactions

The trademark filings led to a strong backlash from civil society, legal experts, and political leaders.

  • Many labeled the act as “moment trademarking”—a trend where individuals or companies rush to claim terms from national events.
  • Legal experts warned this could set a dangerous precedent and harm the dignity of national operations.
  • A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court, demanding that such terms be barred from commercial registration permanently.

Read more on India’s trademark ethics debate.

📌 What the Law Says

Indian Trademark Law prevents:

  • Use of marks that hurt public order or morality
  • Misleading names that imply government endorsement
  • Registration of military or national symbols

Global Perspective:

Other countries like the US and UK also have provisions barring the trademarking of government or military-related terms.

Explore India’s IPR regime
Compare with US Trademark Law (USPTO)

🔍 What’s Next?

  • All “Operation Sindoor” trademark applications have been officially canceled.
  • The Supreme Court may decide on broader legal safeguards to prevent future misuse of national phrases.
  • Industry experts call for clearer IP policy reforms to address ethical concerns in trademark registration.

📈 SEO Summary

Keywords: Operation Sindoor, Trademark Rejected, Reliance Industries, India Military Operation, Trademark Law India, Public Interest Litigation, Trade Marks Act 1999, National Symbol Trademark

Conclusion:
The rejection of the “Operation Sindoor” trademark filings sends a clear message: national identity is not for sale. As India navigates the complex balance between intellectual property rights and public sentiment, this case may well shape future IP policy.

Nutella Recognized as a Well-Known Trademark by Delhi High Court, Strengthening Ferrero’s Brand Rights in India

by

In a significant win for global confectionery company Ferrero SpA, the Delhi High Court has officially granted Nutella the status of a well-known trademark under Indian trademark law. This legal recognition provides Nutella with stronger protection against unauthorized use and counterfeit products in India.

⚖️ Court Ruling: A Landmark in Trademark Protection

The case was heard in the matter of Ferrero SpA v. MB Enterprises by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who concluded that Nutella had built substantial brand equity in India and deserved the enhanced legal safeguards that come with being classified as a well-known trademark.

The Court issued a permanent injunction against MB Enterprises, a firm found producing and distributing counterfeit Nutella jars. In addition to the injunction, the company was directed to pay ₹30 lakh in damages and ₹2 lakh in legal costs to Ferrero.

🧃 Nutella’s Growth in India: A Strong Market Presence

Although Nutella was launched internationally in 1964, it officially entered the Indian market around 2009. Since then, Ferrero has significantly expanded Nutella’s visibility and market penetration across India.

Evidence submitted in court showed that Ferrero invested heavily in brand promotion, with advertising budgets ranging between ₹3 crore and ₹16 crore annually. The company also reported substantial sales, including ₹233 crore in revenue during the 2020–21 financial year, followed by ₹145 crore in 2021–22 and ₹106 crore in 2022–23 (Source – Economic Times).

🚨 Counterfeiting Crisis: Serious Risks for Consumers

The case originated after a Maharashtra FDA raid in October 2021 revealed a large-scale counterfeit operation. Authorities discovered over 950,000 fake Nutella jars and hundreds of thousands of packaging materials mimicking Ferrero’s original branding. The products were being sold across Indian markets under deceptive names.

The court observed that counterfeit edible goods pose serious public health risks, particularly when they target children and families, who are the primary consumers of Nutella.

📜 Legal Implication: Why “Well-Known” Trademark Status Matters

A “well-known” status under Indian trademark law provides extraordinary legal protection, even beyond related categories. It prevents other entities from using similar branding or packaging—even on unrelated goods—if it causes confusion or dilutes the reputation of the original brand.

The ruling is in alignment with international recognition of Nutella’s trademark by global bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Trademark Association (INTA).

🌍 Global Brands and Indian Courts: A Growing Trend

Nutella joins a growing list of global names, including Red Bull, Burger King, DHL, and New Balance, that have been granted “well-known” status by Indian courts. These decisions reflect a broader trend in Indian jurisprudence that values trans-border reputation and protects international trademarks from local misuse (Reference – APAA).

✅ Conclusion

With this judgment, Ferrero has secured stronger trademark enforcement in India, protecting its iconic Nutella brand from unauthorized use and market dilution. The decision strengthens consumer trust, promotes brand authenticity, and reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to intellectual property rights.

🔗 External Links:

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh to Puma in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Counterfeit Goods

by

The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in damages to global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a trademark infringement case against a seller of counterfeit products. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using Puma’s registered trademarks.

⚖️ Court Decision

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, held that the defendant had willfully violated Puma’s trademark rights by selling fake products bearing identical marks. The court observed that the imitation was not accidental but a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers.

The court noted:

“The products being sold by the defendant are counterfeit, carrying the same logos, marks, and branding, which clearly shows the intent to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”

Since the defendant failed to appear or submit any response despite several notices—especially after February 2024—the case proceeded ex parte.

🔗 Read full judgment coverage on LiveLaw

🛑 Counterfeiting and Consumer Deception

The court emphasized that Puma’s trademarks are well-known globally and have established significant goodwill and consumer trust in India. The defendant, by selling goods with identical marks in the same trade channels, violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and engaged in unfair competition.

This judgment aims to set a precedent for stricter action against counterfeiters who infringe on the rights of established brands and mislead Indian consumers.

“This is not a mere case of passing off; it is a case of outright counterfeiting,” the court held.

💰 Damages and Penalty

The High Court awarded Puma ₹8 lakh as compensation, citing the following reasons:

  • The damage to the brand’s reputation.
  • The loss of genuine sales and business.
  • The need to deter such unlawful conduct.

The court rejected symbolic damages and instead granted substantial monetary relief, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark violations.

🧾 Background of the Case

Puma filed the lawsuit after discovering the unauthorized sale of counterfeit Puma products by a local trader. The company sought:

  • A permanent injunction.
  • Damages for trademark infringement.
  • Disclosure of profits earned from fake goods.

Despite several summonses and notices, the defendant remained absent, prompting the court to decide based on the material available.

🔍 Legal Significance

This case highlights India’s growing judicial commitment to protecting IP rights, especially for well-known trademarks. Courts are increasingly awarding higher damages to deter counterfeiting, sending a clear signal to violators.

A similar ruling by the Delhi High Court in March 2025 also awarded ₹11 lakh in damages to Puma in a separate counterfeit case, showing judicial consistency in protecting brand owners.

Court Rules in Favor of WEE POWER Trademark Over Ferrari

by

In a significant legal decision, the Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled in favor of Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian company that produces the energy drink WEE POWER, in a trademark dispute brought by luxury Italian carmaker Ferrari SpA.

Ferrari alleged that the WEE POWER logo, which features two rearing horses on either side of a prominent “W”, bore too close a resemblance to Ferrari’s iconic single rearing horse emblem, potentially misleading consumers and damaging Ferrari’s brand identity. However, the court dismissed these claims, stating that the trademarks are distinct in design, context, and usage.

Case Overview

The dispute arose when Sunrise-Mark applied to register the WEE POWER trademark in Malaysia. Ferrari objected, arguing that the drink’s branding, particularly the horse imagery, could cause brand confusion and infringe upon Ferrari’s intellectual property.

The court, however, found the argument to be without sufficient basis. Presiding judge Justice Wong Kian Kheong highlighted that while both logos contain horse figures, their visual representation and overall branding are clearly distinguishable.

Court’s Findings

In the detailed judgment, the court noted several key differences:

Logo Structure: Ferrari’s emblem is a solitary horse standing on its hind legs, a symbol tightly associated with its automotive legacy. In contrast, WEE POWER’s mark features two horses, each facing inward with a stylized “W” at the center and the words “WEE POWER” below.

Sector Disparity: Ferrari is a luxury automobile brand, while Sunrise-Mark produces consumer beverages. The judge stated that it is unlikely any reasonable consumer would associate an energy drink with a supercar manufacturer.

Meaning of “WEE”: The name “WEE” was accepted by the court as being derived from the name of the company’s founder, Wee Juan Chien, rather than an attempt to imitate or draw attention through the use of the English word.

Due to these factors, the court ruled there was no risk of public confusion nor evidence of any intention by Sunrise-Mark to exploit Ferrari’s brand image.

Sunrise-Mark Can Proceed with Trademark

As a result of the decision, Sunrise-Mark is now legally permitted to register and use the WEE POWER logo in Malaysia. The court also ordered Ferrari to bear the legal costs of the proceedings, solidifying the judgment in favor of the Malaysian company.

Company Reactions

Sunrise-Mark issued a statement celebrating the decision as a win for local entrepreneurs and fair competition. The company emphasized that its branding was designed independently and intended to reflect its identity, not to mimic or capitalize on any global trademarks.

Ferrari has not yet released an official statement regarding the ruling or whether it plans to appeal.

Implications of the Ruling

This case highlights the boundaries of trademark protection, especially when large international brands attempt to challenge local firms in unrelated sectors. The decision reinforces that context, industry, and branding clarity are critical in determining trademark conflicts.

This article is for informational purposes only and is based on publicly available reports as of June 2025. It does not offer legal advice. All brand names and logos mentioned are the property of their respective owners.

Yamaha Wins Trademark Case: Importance of Acquired Distinctiveness

by
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Yamaha Motor Co., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled mark based on a rarely used proviso in Section 201. The decision highlights the importance of acquired distinctiveness and may pave the way for more brand owners to reclaim their legacy trademarks.
The case revolved around Yamaha’s appeal against the Registrar’s decision to cancel one of its trademarks due to non-use. However, the court ruled in Yamaha’s favor by invoking a long-overlooked proviso to Section 201, which permits reinstatement of trademarks that may have acquired distinctiveness in the market—even if they have not been in continuous use.

Court Reaffirms Importance of Acquired Distinctiveness
In its detailed judgment, the Court held that Yamaha’s trademark had developed significant consumer recognition and market goodwill prior to its cancellation. Justice [Name Not Provided] observed that the Trade Marks Registry had failed to consider the acquired distinctiveness of the mark—a crucial element of the proviso to Section 201, which grants the Registrar discretionary power to restore such marks under special circumstances.

“Statutory discretion must be exercised in a holistic manner. Ignoring a valid proviso renders the decision incomplete and flawed,” the Court remarked.

The Court concluded that Yamaha’s mark, by virtue of its prior reputation and public association, was eligible for restoration.

A Rarely Invoked Clause Comes to Light
The proviso to Section 201—originally introduced in a 1960 amendment under the previous law—has seldom been cited in recent decades. It allows the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore a cancelled registration if it can be shown that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning or public recognition, thereby distinguishing itself from common or descriptive terms.

Yamaha’s legal team argued that their mark had become synonymous with their brand offerings and enjoyed widespread familiarity among Indian consumers—well before its removal from the register. The court agreed.

Implications for Brand Owners and IP Law
Legal experts believe the verdict could have a far-reaching impact on how intellectual property authorities interpret restoration requests.

“The judgment sets a precedent for trademarks that might have lapsed due to procedural oversights but still hold value in the public domain,” said an intellectual property law specialist not involved in the case.

The decision also acts as a reminder to the Trade Marks Registry to consider all applicable legal provisions, including discretionary ones, when evaluating such cases.

Legal Community Welcomes Clarification
The judgment is being welcomed as a clarifying moment for Indian trademark law, especially for companies—both Indian and international—looking to safeguard legacy marks. It may also prompt revisions in how the Registry processes applications for restoration.

Yamaha’s success in this case could lead to a wave of similar petitions from brand owners seeking to recover rights over dormant or cancelled marks, particularly those with proven public recognition or historical use.

Disclaimer:
This article is an original and independently written news report based on the public judgment and legal reporting available through LiveLaw. It has been paraphrased and reconstructed for clarity, legal accuracy, and to ensure it is free from plagiarism. For further reference, readers may consult the original coverage at LiveLaw.

OpenAI Erases ‘io’ Branding After Trademark Clash with AI Startup IYO

by

OpenAI has removed all public references to “io” — the hardware startup co-founded by legendary Apple designer Sir Jony Ive — following a U.S. federal court’s temporary restraining order arising from a trademark infringement complaint filed by rival company IYO.

The development marks a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI’s ambitious hardware expansion and raises key questions about brand identity and intellectual property in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry.

What Prompted the Move?

OpenAI, which recently announced a multi-billion-dollar partnership with Ive’s startup to develop a next-generation consumer AI device, quietly removed mentions of “io” from its website, social media platforms, and press announcements. This action came shortly after a federal judge responded to IYO’s claim that OpenAI’s use of “io” could confuse consumers due to the similarities between the names.

In compliance with the restraining order, OpenAI has halted public usage of the brand name, though it maintains that it disagrees with the allegations.

“We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options,” OpenAI stated.

Background: OpenAI & Ive’s Billion-Dollar Deal

In May 2025, OpenAI entered into a deal with Jony Ive’s design lab LoveFrom and funding support from SoftBank, creating a new hardware venture reportedly valued at $6.4–$6.5 billion. The collaboration is aimed at launching a cutting-edge AI device designed to revolutionize human-AI interaction — a move seen as a challenge to existing consumer electronics players like Apple, Meta, and Amazon.

The device, still under development, is not expected to launch before 2026, and court filings confirm that it is not a wearable or in-ear product, despite earlier speculations.

IYO’s Legal Challenge

The trademark complaint was filed by IYO, a California-based startup that also specializes in AI hardware and is backed by Alphabet’s experimental division. IYO claims that the similarity between “IYO” and “io” could cause brand confusion and potentially harm its market identity.

The federal judge agreed that IYO’s concerns were credible enough to warrant a temporary restraining order, pending a full hearing scheduled for October 2025.

Public Reactions and Industry Implications

The tech community reacted swiftly. Elon Musk, an outspoken critic of OpenAI in recent months, responded to the news with a cryptic “🤨” emoji on social media, adding fuel to the already contentious atmosphere surrounding AI development.

Despite the branding conflict, OpenAI has confirmed that its partnership with Ive remains intact and that the development of the hardware device will proceed as planned.

What’s Next?

A court hearing in October 2025 will determine the fate of the “io” branding.

Meanwhile, the AI-powered device being built by OpenAI and Ive continues to be shrouded in secrecy, with analysts predicting a major reveal in 2026.

Use Of Sanskrit for new patent technology

by

The Lok Sabha secretariat has decided to provide simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings in Six different languages including Sanskrit. This introduction of Sanskrit interpretation in the Lok Sabha is a testament to the government’s efforts to bring the language into the mainstream. This initiative can serve as a stepping stone for broader applications of Sanskrit in official, scientific, and legal frameworks and proceedings. As a language if it can facilitate real-time parliamentary debates, why not intellectual property filings? In current era other countries are embracing their linguistic heritage in scientific and technical field. India has the opportunity to take a pioneering step by integrating Sanskrit into its patent system.
Although, Sanskrit itself is not directly related to patent or the legal world in the same way as English or other common languages for intellectual property. However, there are a few reasons why Sanskrit might come up in discussions related to patents or intellectual property, even if it’s not the primary language of patents:
1. Historical Context: Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world and has a rich historical and cultural significance. If a intellectual property involves traditional knowledge, especially from regions where Sanskrit is or was historically used, it may be relevant to discussions on the protection of ancient wisdom or practices. In such cases, Sanskrit could be part of the research or documentation, especially when related to traditional Indian medicine, spiritual practices, or ancient technologies that might be patented.

2. Patent Language Innovation: The Patents are usually filed in legal and technical languages (like English, Chinese, Japanese etc). The creative solutions or innovations described in patents might reference Sanskrit, particularly when the patent involves innovations related to language processing, machine learning, or translation tools for rare or ancient languages. For example, a patent could be related to systems that analyze Sanskrit texts or make them more accessible through modern technology.

3. Symbolic Significance: The companies might use Sanskrit or Sanskrit-based words as part of trademarks and for branding their products and services, especially in tech or pharma industries. If a brand name or concept connected to Sanskrit were part of a larger patent dispute or related to intellectual property rights, it might show up in legal news or patent filings.

4. Technology for Translation: Patents related to AI and natural language processing might be used to improve or automate the translation of ancient languages like Sanskrit into modern languages. This could be valuable in academia, research, and technology, which could tie into the patent landscape.

It can reflects India’s ability to connect its ancient traditions and knowledge with modern needs. By reviving Sanskrit in this modern context, India could underscore the enduring relevance of ancient wisdom in addressing contemporary challenges.

“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court

by

The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.

Ratan_Tata_Vs_Delhi_todayDownload