Is it legal to trademark the name of a Government Operation? Understanding legal limits in India

This blog is written by Sidhartha Das, a seasoned Advocate, specialised in Intellectual Property Law and Senior Partner at Auromaa Associates. With extensive experience in Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights and Industrial Designs, he has represented clients in high-stakes cases before the Supreme Court of India and IP forums. His work blends legal expertise with business acumen to deliver strategic, precedent-setting solutions.     

Introduction

A lot of headlines have been made in recent days about the registration of a trademark application of the name Operation Sindoor, which has raised concerns about the registration of a trademark for the same name. The fact that the operation itself was a great initiative of the armed forces of our country, but it was also an opportunity to be witnessed by some people. And you will be amazed to know that there were about 23 applications made to obtain a trademark on the name and commercially use it, in India, the USA and the UK.  

Where others saw it as a business opportunity and lacked sensitivity, others claimed that this would water down the value and the purpose of the operation. It has now become a big legal and moral question, and there is a lot of opposition from the general populace and legal observers.

This posed a question whether any government or military activity is permitted to have a treatment as any other name with regard to trademarks? 

In order to comprehend and analyse this in a more efficient manner, we are going to break down the legal part of this, and we will know about additional guidelines that can assist us in examining whether a national military operation can be turned into a commercial brand.

What is a Trademark? Meaning and scope 

To comprehend the legal boundary of this concept in India, our discussion should start with understanding ‘Trademark’.

Section 2 (1) (zb) of the  Trademarks Act, 1999 defines a ‘Trademark’ as a sign that can be expressed graphically and is able to differentiate the goods or services of an individual over those of other people and may also include the shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colour. The logos, symbols or names that we see on any product or service tend to represent this idea. 

Nevertheless, the commercial connotation in it is much deeper. A trademark is a personification of the company in the market. Each trademark contributes a lot more than any tangible asset to the financial worth of a business. As such, it needs an equivalent degree of protection, and this protection is achieved by the rights of a trademark. 

When it comes to anything like an idea, a product or a war, there is always a name to be given to it, and there is always a race to win the name. When one possesses such a name then that person gains a competitive advantage over it. A trademark facilitates the prevention of the use of a similar name by others,  which may mislead people. For instance, you cannot use a brand name like Adidas, the half-eaten Apple logo, or the brand image like the Amul Girl because it belongs to another business. 

In case an individual makes an attempt, the actual owner may initiate an infringement case under Section 28  of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This is even more sensitive in cases where the name has national or emotional attachment, such as the name of a government operation.

What can be identified as ‘Government Operation’?

The actions, which are taken by the government and, in fact, by the military, are often referred to as the ‘Government Operations’, and are considered as the ones that are important. The names may have missions that bear names of the code, peacekeeping assignments or rescuing ones. The names of Operation Khukri, Operation Sindoor, Operation Meghdoot and Operation Bluestar are all such operations that are very important with reference to national importance. 

India lacks a strict legal framework that can prevent any person from trademarking the name of a government operation. However, in case the Defence Ministry is interested in registering any such name, then it can forbid other individuals from obtaining a trademark on such names.

So, the question that arises is, why are such trademark applications rejected? The response to this is that the usage of the name of any government operation by one individual can easily deceive people, and they may begin to believe that such an individual with the trademark may have some official support or even government backing. They may as well hurt religious or public feelings, in many cases. These are the reasons that are stated in Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, that grant the government the right to deny such registrations.

Whenever a company records any trademark that is also profound nationally, the likelihood is that it might gain an unfair advantage or profits in the marketplace. In the majority of cases, individuals have a rather natural tendency toward the names that once had some emotional content and above all, when they are linked with some government activities or any other events within the country. Thus, when these names are registered as a trademark, it do not only get the brand name but also identify and acquire the sentiments and trust of the masses. 

Operation Khukri vs. Operation Sindoor 

If we look at the very few precedents that are available on this concept, we come across the trademark registration of ‘Operation Khukri’ by Abundantia Entertainment Private Limited. 

The question here arises that in case of a Government Operation name that has already been registered as a trademark, then why is the same being criticised under a new and recent occurrence? It is also striking to note that despite falling under the same class, i.e Class 41 of the Nice Classification System dealing with services related to media, entertainment, education, culture, etc., we see different outcomes in the two cases. 

The potential responses to these questions are moving around the factual situation of the cases in terms of their magnitude, timing, social reaction and legal strategies. Operation Khukri was one of the major military activities conducted by the Indian forces in a UN Peacekeeping Mission. The contrast is that it was not a situation of moment trademarking as a display of opportunism since it was registered 23 years later than the mission, and that too by only one applicant. On the contrary, the trademark application of Operation Sindoor, which is a government operation, has merely proved to be a time of self-interested business fulfilment. In the current conflict between the two countries, many persons indicated their interest in trademarking it immediately, whereas in the Operation Khukri, the case was not similar. 

Operation Sindoor trademarking can be interpreted as the act of desperate commercialisation of an operation that has national sentiments. On the other hand, decades-old Operation Khukri is associated with an entire UN operation and war valour, whereas Operation Sindoor is a symbolic and cultural story. Operation Khukri may be recalled as military heritage, and Operation Sindoor is associated with national mourning..

What are the limitations on trademarking the name of Government Operations?

To determine the legal requirement to file the trademark registration of a Government Operation name, we must consider the varying grounds of rejection of a trademark registration application.

Trademarks Act, 1999

There are two grounds of rejection under the Trademarks Act, 1999, which are absolute and relative.  The absolute grounds are associated with the lack of such attributes which are inherent in the trademark as such, and the lack of which causes the application for registration to be stopped. There is a lack of uniqueness, having a mark that defines its value (be it geographic, qualitative, quantitative, etc.) in any manner, using common language words or tarnished as being against any law or concepts of morality. Furthermore, the Act u/S 9(2)(d) prohibits the registration of any trademark that may lead to any confusion amongst the public, deception of the public or is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act,1950.

For example, words like sweet, laptop and rasoi cannot be used as trademarks because they indicate the nature of the product, as held in the case of M/s Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. v. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks [AIR 1955 Cal. 519]. Such absolute grounds of disqualification are to be found in Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This is to avoid fraudulent activities that might mislead the general populace by causing them confusion about a certain product.

Trademark Co-existence and Implications for a Government Operation Name 

The relative grounds of refusal are supposed to consider the trademark with those ones that are in existence. This means that a trademark may be rejected when it is protected under the Copyright Law, or it has already got a large consumer base, either in the number of customers it has or through its channels of distribution or when it has been protected under any other law. 

Let’s see the case of Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnatak Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (AIR 2018 SC 3516). This was a mark infringement case on the registration of the names Nandhini and Nandini. The Apex Court ruled that co-existence of both marks may be permitted even in the face of similarities. 

Alright, but can any other party come and make a slight alteration to the names of Government Operations and have the trademark registered? 

We must see the background of the above judgment. The goods in question were associated with restaurant services and dairy products, and the parties had no common goods since the nature of the goods provided by them was different, and the co-existence was approved. But the case of a Government Operation name is not the same. In case the changes, which have been done in the name of the operation, are of such a nature that it is impossible to draw an inter-relation between the same very easily, then there is a possibility of co-existence. Also, it would depend on the purpose of using such a name, but the existing law might not be able to justify it in the scenario of living alongside such a trademark that has the emotional load of a national tragedy, which can elicit thousands of feelings in people.

Well, what if a trademark is being used not to make a profit? Then we would normally assume that it can be granted as a trademark because there is no intention to make a profit out of it. This question was settled in Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International & Anr, I.A. NO. 9089/2010 in CS (OS). Here, Greenpeace was an NGO that took the logo and trademark of TATA and argued that it was a fair comment, followed by criticism through a parody of the logo and trademark. The aim was to raise awareness for non-commercial use.

They claimed that it would come under freedom of speech and expression and denied the allegations of TATA that it infringed their registered trademark u/S 29(4) of the Act. In this case, the injunction was denied, regarding some of the main arguments, such as the fact that the work of parody might be distinguished from the original one, and it was unlikely to cause confusion between customers. 

But when we are discussing the trademarking of a government operation, then it is possible that it might not pass the distinctiveness test u/S 9 of the Act. When the changes effected in the name of the operation are of such a character that it could not be easily supposed that there was any inter-relation between the same, then co-existence may be admitted. 

Public Sentiment and Religious Considerations in Trademark Registration

Other than the above reasons, which evaluate the trademarks on technical grounds, we have to also consider the wider societal and religious reasons why the names of government operations are not registered. It is important to know how the trademarking of the word Operation Sindoor can offend the religious sentiments of individuals. 

This operation is the outcome of the recent misfortune of tourists in Pahalgam. It gets its name from a sense of unity and nationality among the people of India. In India, the word Sindoor has a religious connotation as well. Thus, it is possible to say that the commercial benefits of such usage of a name may damage the overall mood of the population.

State, Sentiment and Section 9

The Trademark Act, u/S 9(2)(b), does not allow registration of any trademark that may offend religious susceptibilities. Some people can also see in this as trying to commercialise national tragedy and collective mourning in order to make money. In May 2025, there was a PIL before the Supreme Court on similar grounds. The petition emphasised the feelings of citizens and the sacrifices behind this operation.

Reliance Industries was also on the list of people running after the trademark of Operation Sindoor a few days before the aforementioned PIL. However, shortly after they were met with a Public backlash, they pulled their application back and published a statement, which attributed it to a mistake made by a junior employee. 

The foundation of PIL is in Section 9, which is mainly concerned with the absolute grounds of refusal to register a trademark. In addition to that, in India, there exists a facilitatory organisation called the ‘Trademark Registry’ that governs the rules and regulations regarding trademark registration in India. When it comes to the application, in case the Registry feels the necessity to ask any query regarding the application, it may also call the applicants to and fro. 

The registry would also highlight Section 9(2)(b) in the application of a case such as Operation Sindoor to establish that the application is damaging the religious feelings of the people of India. In case there is space for the same, then it might be rejected by the registry after verification, as long as the concerns are not addressed. The grounds of refusal would be difficult because it is frequently influenced by the current state of affairs at the time of filing.

Preventing False Government Affiliation in Trademark Registration

No name capable of bearing the relevance or bearing of the Government of India or bearing a relevance to that of a state government can be registered as a trademark as stipulated in Section 3 Clause 7 Emblems and Names (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 1950. It may also be stated that in case of any government operation, any attempt by any private company to or wanting to register any name as trademark then the registration of the trademark is denied on the basis that it may give a false impression to the people that it may be a government supported or approved trademark. 

The other major basis of denying trademark registration is when the mark suggests that it is linked to the national defence; in that case, the registry will reject it. This is not an expressly given ground, but can be an implied ground of rejection. In case a company or a business begins to use a Government Operation name, there is a possibility that the general population may come to believe that the products or services being marketed are in some way associated with or a part of the national defence of India. 

Accordingly, rejection of a trademark registration of the name of a government operation is exhaustive as per both legal and public interest.

Balancing national significance and private trademark claims

People have profit-making interests, and hence the whole talk about the trademark of Government Operation names. The fame of the operation rendered its name tempting to economic interests. Nevertheless, due to the sheer amount of condemnation and the fact that the applicants were not able to demonstrate that they wanted to use the specific Operation Sindoor as a trademark, the applications were turned down. 

That is not the real issue to be decided, as the position of the law is uncertain on two aspects: 

• First, whether the government can trademark the names and 
• Second, whether there should be permission given to the private parties to trademark the name of a government operation. 

Preferably, rights to a Government Operation name should be vested in the Government, as is the case with Emblems, Flag, etc. No privately owned entity should be permitted to trademark such a name of national significance unless a considerable lapse of time has taken place and the trademark applicant can demonstrate that it has a good faith intent of use.

Conclusion

The whole discussion that we carried out provided us with the outcome that no strict laws exist that can be applied to trademark the name of government operations. India must do something to control these things and may prevent the people from using the incidents of national concern. The recent incident of trademarking the name of Operation Sindoor is an instance of moment trademark, and that too with a motive to trademark on a very significant moment in the history of India. 

It is not a new piece of news; in the era of COVID-19, several companies have developed an interest and filed trademarks on the term COVID-19. These situations provide impetus to the development of a solid legal framework and to prevent the distortion of the name, which is associated with the memory of the population.  A regulatory body would assist in defining the boundary between respect and commercial profit.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. Is the trademarking of the unclaimed names, like Government Operations is granted based on ‘first come, first served’?

No, it is not given on a first-come, first-served basis. It perceives the mood of the people, their unique nature, as well as the probability of misleading the minds of the people. Hence, the earliest filer on a trademark registration is not automatically approved.

2. Are Military Operation names the Intellectual Property of the Government?

This question has an answer which rests on the fact, i.e. whether it has been registered as a trademark by the government. When the answer is yes, then it turns out to be an intellectual property of the Government. Yet, trademarking of names of military actions is not a common government move. In this case, the names of the military operation are not automatically covered by the intellectual property law just because they were state projects. Hence, the doors are left open to allow the attempts of the private parties to trademark the names.

3. What does ‘Moment Trademarking’ mean, and how is this related to ‘Operation Sindoor’?

Moment Trademarking refers to the process of applying the trademark to the marks, names and symbols that are linked with the events of public interest that are prevailing at that particular time. The most iconic example of moment trademarking is the trademark race of the matter concerning Operation Sindoor. It was considered an ideal occasion to acquire exclusive rights to the name that has a buzz around it.

References 

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack