The Trademark Registry in India has found itself at the center of controversy after its recent withdrawal of the trademark approval for the ‘Chutiyaram’ brand. Initially accepted under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the trademark was deemed accepted on March 18, 2025, only to be rescinded shortly thereafter, igniting a fierce backlash from the applicant.
The namkeen (snack) brand applicant, Sadhna Goswami, expressed her outrage, alleging that the withdrawal stemmed from a "reckless media trial" rather than valid legal concerns. Goswami's stance has garnered attention as she points to what she perceives as systemic bias against Hindi and other vernacular languages in the trademark registration process.
According to a report from Bar and Bench, Goswami responded in writing to the Trademark Registry, arguing that the media sensationalized the acceptance of the trademark amid a wave of negative coverage. She stated, "Media outlets wrongfully sensationalized the acceptance of the Mark despite the registry’s well-reasoned acceptance; various media organizations launched a targeted and unjustified campaign against the mark’s approval." This intense scrutiny, according to Goswami, directly led to the abrupt withdrawal.
The name ‘Chutiyaram’ combines the word ‘Chutiya’—derived from the Sanskrit word ‘Choti,’ meaning a sacred tuft of hair associated with Hinduism—and ‘Ram,’ a revered deity in Hindu tradition. Goswami emphasized that "the term ‘CHUTIYARAM’ in its entirety conveys a deeply spiritual and cultural essence. It is not a slang term or an offensive expression but rather a respectful reference to sacred Hindu traditions.”
Initially, the Trademark Registry accepted 'Chutiyaram' because it was considered a unique combination of words, showing no direct link to the goods associated with the brand, such as namkeen and biscuits. However, valid concerns regarding the name arose surrounding the potential classification as scandalous or obscene under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act. This led to an unprecedented withdrawal of the approval, stating the mark was open to objection.
Interestingly, Goswami has raised questions regarding the inconsistency of the Trademark Registry’s decisions. She highlighted the approval of trademarks such as 'Boob,' 'Lauda,' and 'Pussy in Boots,' which could also be seen as offensive. "If these names were accepted, why not 'Chutiyaram'?” she queried, framing the critique around what she perceives as an unequal application of trademark laws based on linguistic and cultural prejudices.
Goswami's lawyer, Anil Yadav, conveyed further frustration, asserting that the Trademark Registry needs to operate independently, unclouded by external pressures. He echoed the idea that the agency's autonomy is critical to ensuring a just and fair trademark application process. The response filed on behalf of Goswami pointed out the systemic issues present within the registry, highlighting the absence of a Hindi module in their digital filing system that forces Hindi applicants to transliterate their trademarks into English. Goswami stated, “The Registry’s continued insistence on English as the primary language for word mark applications reflects a colonial hangover.”
While seeking the reinstatement of her trademark approval, Goswami urged the registrar to acknowledge that the withdrawal was significantly influenced by media pressure rather than legal misstepping. Her demands reflect a larger conversation about inclusivity of Hindi and other vernacular languages in official regulatory frameworks.
The Trademark Registry's pivot on the ‘Chutiyaram’ application raises questions not only about the efficacy of its administrative procedures but also about cultural representation in Indian trademark law. As it stands, Goswami's pursuit of justice for 'Chutiyaram' could prove pivotal in addressing systemic biases that many see as against non-English languages.
As the saga continues, it remains to be seen how the Trademark Registry will navigate the tumultuous waters stirred by media coverage and public discourse surrounding this highly sensitive topic. The implications of their decision extend beyond the simple approval or disapproval of a brand name; they touch on deep-seated issues regarding language, culture, and identity within a rapidly globalizing society.
In summation, the battle over 'Chutiyaram' is more than just a trademark dispute; it is a reflection of the struggle for representation and respect for vernacular languages in official contexts. As Goswami calls for the restoration of her trademark, the need for a transparent and equitable process within the Trademark Registry becomes ever more apparent, urging a reevaluation of their operational principles against the backdrop of language rights and cultural identity.
