In these tough times of conflict, we saw numerous applications seeking a trademark over the codename of India’s military response against the Pahalgam attack- “Operation Sindoor”. To comment on the surge in these applications, we invited Mr. Sunil Jose to share his views on whether the Trademarks Act allows such applications or not. Mr Jose is a Professor of Practice (Law) at Alliance University, Bangalore and Founder, Suns Legal IP Law Firm, Kochi. He is available at- brandlawyer(at)gmail(dot)com.
“Operation Sindoor” and the Misguided Idea of “Moment Trademarking”
By Sunil Jose
In a recent incident, widely reported by the media, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) found itself at the centre of controversy over its trademark application for “Operation Sindoor.” This term, associated with India’s significant military strikes on terror bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, carries deep national sentiments. The application was quickly withdrawn and Reliance claimed it was inadvertently filed by an unauthorized junior employee. Reliance Industries issued a statement clarifying that they had no intention of trademarking a phrase that has become a “symbol of Indian bravery”.
The damage caused by this misstep was significant. The public perceived the trademark application as an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on a national event, leading to widespread criticism. The public response substantiated the sensitivity surrounding terms that evoke national pride and the potential reputational harm for companies seen as exploiting such sentiments. RIL’s quick withdrawal and public clarification helped reduce the damage, but the incident underscored the risks of using moment marketing in trademark registration.
RIL was not the only applicant for “Operation Sindoor.” As of May 11, 2025, around twenty-five applications have been filed with the Indian Trademark Registry for the registration of “Operation Sindoor” and its variants across various goods and services classes. Filing these applications on and around the day of the historic military strikes resonates with the strategy of moment marketing, where brands leverage current events, trends, or moments to create timely and relevant marketing messages. Moment marketing helps brands connect with people by delivering messages that resonate with current events (see here). In a recent LinkedIn post, I have referred to adopting the same strategy for trademark protection as “moment trademarking.”
“Moment trademarking” is not new in India. A recent example is the rush of trademark filings for covid related terms during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of which were later refused by the Trademark Registry or abandoned by the applicants. In fact, trademark offices worldwide had seen a surge in applications for terms related to COVID-19 and the coronavirus.
“Moment trademarking” is a misguided idea due to a lack of understanding of the trademark registration and protection process. A term like “Operation Sindoor,” which has caught national attention and evoked national sentiments, is not easily registrable as a trademark by a private entity for two reasons.
First, filing a trademark application does not guarantee ownership like registering a domain name. Unlike domain registration, which operates on a “first-come, first-serve” basis and can be completed quickly through accredited domain registrars, trademark registration involves a detailed and rigorous process. This process can take 8 to 15 months and includes multiple levels of scrutiny by the government. Even after government’s acceptance, a trademark can still be opposed by the general public. These processes ensure that trademarks are granted after thorough examination and do not infringe on rights of existing trademark owners. Domain registration is simpler and faster, but domain names do not offer the same level of legal protection as trademarks.
Secondly, there is a misunderstanding that trademarks can be easily obtained for a trending term like “Operation Sindoor” without undergoing legal scrutiny under the Act. Trademark law in India includes provisions to prevent the misuse of terms like “Operation Sindoor” that carry national sentiments. Section 9 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, outlines the absolute grounds for refusal of registration as follows:
9. Absolute grounds for refusal of registration.—
(1) The trade marks—
(a) which are devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person;
(b) which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service;
(c) which consist exclusively of marks or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade, shall not be registered :
Provided that a trade mark shall not be refused registration if before the date of application for registration it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use made of it or is a well-known trade mark.
(2) A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if—
(a) it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion;
(b) it contains or comprises of any matter likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India;
(c) it comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter;
(d) its use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950).
(3) …….
Although there is no explicit prohibition on registering terms that are “nationally significant” or carry “national sentiments,” the application for “Operation Sindoor” may be blocked by invoking one or more provisions of Section 9(2) of the Trademarks Act.
Additionally, Section 9(2)(d) prohibits the registration of marks whose use is prohibited under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Section 3 of this Act prohibits the use certain specified names or emblems for trade, business, profession, patents, trademarks, or designs without prior permission from the Central Government. The specified names and emblems are listed in the Schedule. Clause 7 of the Schedule prohibits the use of any name that suggests or implies patronage of the Government of India or a State Government or connection with any local authority or any government-constituted corporation or body.
Thus, the applicants for “Operation Sindoor” are likely to face refusal of their trademark applications due to the provisions of the Trademarks Act and the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act.
Conclusion
Moment trademarking, as shown by the “Operation Sindoor” applications, is a misguided approach that fails to recognize the significance of the trademark registration process. The legal framework in India currently provides adequate safeguards to prevent the misuse of terms that carry national sentiments. Applicants should be aware of these provisions and avoid opportunistic filings that are likely to be refused. Instead, they should focus on creating distinctive and meaningful trademarks that align with their brand values and respect public sentiments.
Update: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court against attempts to trademark ‘Operation Sindoor.’ The trademark applications for ‘Operation Sindoor’ have not yet been examined by the Trademark Office, and the Controller General has expressed his displeasure over attempts to exploit national sentiments. Given the clear fate of these applications, approaching the Supreme Court at this stage seems unnecessary.