TikTok had approached the High Court challenging the Registrar’s October 31, 2023 order that denied its application under Rule 124 for inclusion in the list of well-known trademarks. While TikTok is already a registered mark in India, it sought the enhanced statutory protection granted to marks recognised as “well-known.”
The petitioner argued that the order was vitiated by non-application of mind and legal error. It was alleged that the Registrar erroneously referred to Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act—which relates to absolute grounds for refusal of registration—when only Section 11 (relative grounds and recognition of well-known marks) was relevant.
TikTok submitted that the Registrar’s reasoning was based entirely on news reports and press releases concerning the ban, and failed to consider the statutory factors laid out under Section 11(6) to (9). It argued that the provisions include criteria such as the recognition of the mark among relevant sections of the public, duration and extent of use, and history of enforcement actions.
It also cited Section 11(9), which clarifies that actual use or registration in India is not a pre-condition for determining whether a mark is well-known. Thus, the fact that TikTok was banned and no longer in use should not have weighed against it.
