In June 2023, legendary former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni took a significant step by filing a trademark application for his well-known nickname, “Captain Cool.” The application was submitted by Rithi Sports Management Pvt Ltd, a company associated with Dhoni, to the Trade Marks Registry. The mark was filed under Class 41, which covers services related to education, sports training, coaching, and entertainment.
With this move, Dhoni seeks to safeguard and commercialize a nickname that has become synonymous with his identity, thanks to his composed leadership and memorable victories for India, including the 2007 T20 World Cup, the 2011 ODI World Cup, and the 2013 Champions Trophy.
Initial Objections and Shift in Use Claim
Initially, the application described the mark as “proposed to be used,” implying it hadn’t yet been commercially exploited. However, during the hearing, Dhoni’s team changed their position, claiming that “Captain Cool” had been in continuous use since 2008, citing widespread media and fan association with Dhoni. This shift helped move the application forward, and the Registry accepted the mark for publication on June 16, 2025, triggering a 120-day opposition period.
Opposition Filed Against the Trademark
In July 2025, the application faced formal opposition, raising both factual and legal concerns:
- Generic and Descriptive Nature of the Term: The opponent argued that “Captain Cool” is a common, laudatory phrase used to describe calm and composed sports figures—not just Dhoni. They pointed to other athletes, including former Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga, who have been described using similar language. Under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, generic or descriptive terms are barred from registration unless the applicant can show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use.
- Lack of Evidence of Use Since 2008: While Dhoni’s team eventually submitted an affidavit claiming use since 2008, the opponent contended that this was unsupported by critical documentary evidence—such as invoices, advertisements, or media usage records—that would typically accompany a claim of acquired distinctiveness. The opponent asserted that such an affidavit, filed late and without exhibits, did not meet the evidentiary standards under Indian trade mark practice.
- Procedural Oversight by the Registry: The opponent further alleged a procedural lapse. They pointed out that a prior registration for “Captain Cool” already existed in the name of Prabha Skill Sports, and the Registry had failed to issue a mandatory rectification notice under the Trade Marks Act. This, they argue, reflects a failure to properly assess conflicting marks under Section 11, which prohibits registration of identical or deceptively similar marks likely to cause confusion.
The opponent summed up their argument with a pointed remark: “‘Captain Cool’ is a generic, complimentary phrase used by the public for many athletes. No one person, however famous, should be allowed to monopolize it.”
Why This Case Matters
This case has stirred both public curiosity and legal debate, for several reasons:
- Generic vs. Distinctive Use: Can a commonly used phrase like “Captain Cool” be reserved exclusively for one individual? This case may influence how Indian courts and the Trade Marks Registry evaluate trademarks that start as general expressions but later gain a strong association with one public figure.
- Celebrity Rights and Image Control: Dhoni’s effort underscores a growing movement among Indian celebrities to control their brand identity. The case could set a precedent for how far the law will go in granting celebrities control over nicknames and image-related identifiers.
- Balancing Public Use and Private Rights: Critics argue that granting exclusive rights over a popular phrase may limit free expression, fan culture, and media commentary. The outcome will be watched closely to see how courts balance trademark protection with broader public interest.
- Concerns Around Registry Procedures: The opposition highlights alleged lapses by the Trade Marks Registry, including insufficient checks for conflicting marks and reliance on unverified claims of use. The case may trigger a closer look at the Registry’s examination standards and procedural safeguards.
Conclusion: A Turning Point in Celebrity Trademark Law
MS Dhoni’s pursuit of the “Captain Cool” trademark goes beyond a legal filing—it’s a test case for the evolving role of intellectual property in celebrity culture. It brings to the forefront the challenges of protecting personal branding in an era where fan-made names often become commercial assets.
Whether or not the trademark is ultimately granted, the case will help shape future policies on personality rights, descriptive marks, and fair trademark procedures. It also raises important questions about who controls public language—and how far that control should go.