TikTok Limited v. Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai (2025): Discretion, Public Policy, And The Limits Of Trademark Sovereignty

Introduction

The Judgement in Tik Tok Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, marks as a crucial milestone in India's Trademark Jurisprudence, highlighting the moment that administrative discretion clashed with the constitutionally-mandated principle of legality. The underlying issue involved in this case examines how to maintain an effective balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the powers of state regulators; additionally, it raises basic questions regarding the limits of executive authority within a politically neutral area of trademark registration.

The most jurisprudentially meaningful facet of this judgment lies not in the outcome, but rather, within the opinion provided by the Court. Specifically, when reading and interpreting the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court viewed the determination of a "well-known" mark as moving from a technical examination of market reputation towards one that included much more of the exercise of discretion by the state, rather than an exclusively technical or evidence-based determination. Because of this change in outlook, there are now significant ramifications from this case regarding how effectively India's intellectual property system will remain insulated from the conflicting forces of Public Policy; thus, it is a redefinition of the boundaries of judicial deference when reviewing administratively-created decisions.

Background

In the case of TikTok Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (Writ Petition (L) No. 8466 of 2025, decided on 10 June 2025) the Bombay High Court studied the relationship between intellectual property and national security.

TikTok Limited applied for registration of its famous name 'TikTok' as a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017 and Sections 11(6)-(9) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999. If successful, this would have granted TikTok greater protection across multiple classes of marks and prevent dilution of TikTok's mark and from unauthorized use of TikTok's mark.

The Registrar of Trade Marks rejected TikTok's application on 31 October 2023 on the basis of "public interest" due to the Indian Government's ban of the TikTok app under The Information Technology Act 2000 on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity and national security.

The TikTok then challenged the rejection, arguing that:

• The Registrar misapplied Section 9 concerning non-registrable marks when it should have looked at Section 11.
• The Registrar did not evaluate TikTok's application on the basis of statutory requirements of recognition, duration, and geographic coverage.
• The refusal to register TikTok's mark constitutes an illegal penalty against the applicant based on public policy unrelated to trademark law.

Justice Pitale of the Bombay High Court ruled on TikTok's petition on 10 June 2025, finding that there is no vested right to have a mark recognised as 'well-known'; that ability must be applied based on the discretion of the Registrar. The Registrar, therefore, had the right to exercise discretion where public policy considerations are present. TikTok's application was therefore upheld by the Court because the Registrar has the right to consider all relevant factors and, in particular, issues related to national security as part of the exercise of discretion pursuant to Sections 11(6).

Constitutional Tensions: IP Rights, Sovereignty, and Proportionality

Trademarks are a statutory creation, however, their protection engages the constitutional rights of property under Article 300-A and the right to trade and carry out a profession in Article 19(1)(g). When a trademark has not met the definition of a well-known trademark, the determination does not extinguish ownership of the trademark; however, it limits the proprietary protection and undermines the constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court's view on well-known recognition as a privilege rather than a right demonstrates a reliance on executive discretion and an inability to apply a proportionality analysis, which is the contemporary means to limit rights under the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and subsequent jurisprudence, the standards of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality must be met by statutory discretion.

However, in this case, the Supreme Court refused to apply a proportionality analysis to the determination of a trademark based on national security considerations. The failure to apply a proportionality analysis indicates a constitutional imbalance, where sovereignty is more important than legality. Once national security was claimed as a ground for refusing to recognize a well-known trademark, judicial review ceased. The pattern in this instance follows a broader constitutional theme of sovereignty exceptionalism whereby judicial review is often curtailed because of a claim of security or similar terms in many contexts unrelated to government defense.

From a rights-based perspective, the decision erodes procedural safeguards found in administrative law and adversely affects legitimate expectations and non-arbitrary use of discretion.

Doctrinal Drift: From Trademark Reputation to Moral Censorship

Section 11(6) provides some detail regarding Consumer Recognition; Period of use; Area of use; & Publicity at no point did the Registrar's decision dispute TikTok's compliance with these factors. Rather, it relied upon Public Order Impacts resulting from the ban of the app as the basis for its decision-making. By utilising this rationale, the Registrar combined Section 9(2)(b) (morality/public order ground for refusing protection) with a determination made under Section 11 – thereby combining absolute registration grounds with the Registrar's discretion.

In their endorsement of this amalgamation, the Court has created a doctrine drift, blurring the clear lines of separation that exist between the three stages of registration; recognition and enforcement of trade marks as per the Trade Marks Act. The drift suggests the disquieting prospect that even though a trade mark has a valid registration, it may not receive the same (or any) enhanced protection that is afforded to trade marks which have been awarded pursuant to other than Intellectual Property Law. This creates a two-tiered regulatory framework, where the nature and degree of proprietary rights will depend upon Government policy rather than finality afforded by registration.

The notion of creating moral assessments after registering a trademark does not match the purpose of the Trade Marks Act and is not what is put forward in the TRIPS Agreement under Article 16(3), where it is clearly established that each member state of the TRIPS Agreement can only assess the level of protection for a trade mark based on its reputation.

Precedential Consistency and the Citizen Watch Contrast

The Conflict in Precedent when comparing Citizen Watch Co. Ltd. v Dinesh Kumar Laxman Bhai Virda (Delhi HC 2024) and TikTok - In July 2024, there were differing opinions expressed by the Delhi High Court regarding the treatment of trademarks in the global marketplace and the level of protection given to trademarks that have a global reputation and are applied internationally as opposed to nationally. The broad approach adopted by the Delhi High Court in Citizen Watch protecting the global reputation of a trademark across borders even if it is not being applied to the same product or for the same purpose by placing more weight on protecting the goodwill of a trademark owner and preventing consumer confusion than a narrower territorial viewpoint.

Conversely, in TikTok the Bombay High Court adopted a more territorial approach, giving priority to the public policy of India rather than recognising an international reputation. The decision in Citizen Watch demonstrates that India remains in line with international IP standards, while TikTok marks an inward shift of jurisdiction, valuing the protection of domestic policy objectives above the protection of the international reputation of a mark. This lack of consistency creates confusion and undermines confidence in the predictability and coherence of IP adjudications in India.

Theoretical Reflection: Public Policy as a Juridical Wildcard

From a legal perspective, the rationale of the Court reflects the trend towards the "public law turn" in IP law- public law is increasingly examined through the lens of governance and morality when judging whether a certain statutory right was violated by a particular policy.

In some contexts, this reasoning is legitimate. However, this flexibility may allow for public policy to become an ill-defined judicially malleable concept enabling courts to ignore statutory weights without adhering to any established criteria.

By failing to define what constitutes "public policy" under Section 11(6) of the Trademark Act, the Court has legalized the Administrative Discretion granted to the Administrator, yet has left undefined the boundaries of that discretion. This creates the dilemma of celebrating discretion as flexibility in one instance, while erasing the traditional rule-of-law values of legality, consistency and ability to appeal in another. Thus, the key issue is not the use of public policy as a defense, but the lack of clear guidelines governing its application. The absence of a legal test such as proportionality or necessity could turn public policy into a shield for arbitrary decision-making that is not subject to judicial review.

The Question of Legislative Intent and Institutional Competence

When establishing Rule 124 (2017) in Parliament the objective was to ensure that there was greater transparency of procedures rather than increasing the Registrar's substantive power of discretion. Under the Rule there needs to be public notice, an invitation for objections and a fact-based evaluation of evidence which is similar to the process of a quasi-judicial nature. The Registrar's ability to rely on an executive order and use it as an external administrative fact (the existence of the executive order), infringes on the legislative framework as it allows the Registrar to substitute policy for evidence.

On the contrary, within both the EU and United States the recognition by the administrative body of a mark that is well-known is still an evidentiary exercise, through the evidence of market surveys, publicity data and consumer awareness studies. Thus, the Courts of Bombay High Courts acceptance of a refusal based on policy makes the IP law in India inconsistent with the requirements of reasonable justification set out by the European Union and United States.

The Courts through the alignment of the discretion regarding trademarks with public policy also eliminated the distinction between commercial regulation and the sovereignty of the State to limit the commercial regulations and evidence through the expansion of the administrative power at the expense of private rights.

Conclusion

The TikTok court ruling demonstrates a significant gap in India's trademark law: the intersection of international standing and domestic regulation. By sustaining the Registrar's refusal to register Tik Tok based on public policy, the Court reaffirmed a view of administrative sovereignty where commercial reputation may be disregarded by public policy without evidence of an applicable standard.

Although this reasoning reflects a geopolitical pragmatism, it has the potential to be misused: changing discretion into ownership. When public policy has no restraints, it lacks the normative guidance that sets the foundation for trademark law.

In light of the current ruling of TikTok v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, it is clear that India is taking a step away from the cosmopolitan nature of the Citizen Watch case towards a concept of trademarks based solely upon state recognition rather than global reputation. For India to become a leader in global intellectual property, it is incumbent upon India's courts to ensure the legal framework does not allow for the political forces of sovereignty to outweigh the legitimate function of law, and that the use of discretion is confined by reason, equity, and proportionality, all of which are fundamental tenets of the rule of law.

Bibliography

• TikTok Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, Writ Petition (L) No. 8466 of 2025, Bombay High Court, Judgment dated 10 June 2025 (per Manish Pitale J.).
• The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India).
  Relevant Provisions: Sections 2(1)(zg), 9(2)(b), 11(6)–(9), 124, and 135.
• The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (India).
  Rule 124 - Procedure for Determination of Well-Known Trademarks.
• Information Technology Act, 2000 (India).
  Section 69A - Power to issue directions for blocking public access to information.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. (Landmark authority on procedural due process and reasonableness of state action).
• Citizen Watch Co. Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Laxman Bhai Virda, CS(COMM) 56/2015, Delhi High Court, decided 16 May 2024 (per Jyoti Singh J.). (Recognition of CITIZEN as a well-known mark; contrast to TikTok).
• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), 1994. --- (Article 16(3): Protection of well-known trademarks).
• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883 (as amended).
  (Article 6bis: Protection of well-known marks).
• WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, 1999. (Guiding interpretive principles for determining well-known status internationally)
• World Trademark Review (2025). "Bombay High Court Upholds Registrar's Discretion to Deny TikTok Well-Known Mark Status."
  https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com.
• CaseMine Summary: TikTok Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks (Mumbai).
  https://www.casemine.com
• Narayanan, P. (2023). Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (8th ed.). Eastern Law House, New Delhi. (Commentary on Sections 11(6)–(9) and Rule 124).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.