Introduction

On June 10, 2025, in TikTok Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks , the Bombay High Court made a significant ruling, backing the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision to deny the registered mark “TikTok” the status of a “well-known mark” under Indian Trademark Act. The court’s decision to uphold this refusal is particularly noteworthy for businesses and legal experts focused on trademark law, especially given the current geopolitical climate and regulatory challenges.

Facts

TikTok Limited already owns a registered Indian trade mark for “TikTok,” the short-form video platform. TikTok later submitted an application under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017, which permits trademark owners to request their mark’s inclusion in the official list of well-known trademarks kept by the Registrar of Trade Marks. TikTok argued that its trademark was not only registered but also widely recognized and used in India prior to the government’s ban on the app. The company highlighted its platform’s immense popularity across numerous countries, its presence in over 150 markets and more than 70 languages, and its user base, which at one point even outpaced major players like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube in terms of downloads. All of this, TikTok contended, made a compelling case for its mark to be acknowledged as well-known in India.

Despite the arguments presented, the Registrar of Trade Marks turned down the application on October 31, 2023, pointing to the continuing statutory ban on the TikTok app that the Government of India imposed under the Information Technology Act on grounds of sovereignty, integrity, national security and public order. Referring to a government press release and a news article from India Today, the Registrar concluded that it wouldn’t be suitable to grant well-known status to a mark associated with an application banned due to serious national issues.

TikTok then challenged this refusal before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Registrar had ignored the evaluative yardsticks in Sections 11(6)–11(9) of the Trade Marks Act and had failed to grapple with its uncontroverted evidence of fame. TikTok also pointed out that the ban on the app is just a temporary measure by the government and could be lifted in the future. They argued that this ban shouldn’t overshadow the legal standards used to assess a trademark’s status. Additionally, they claimed that the Registrar didn’t even acknowledge the comprehensive documents and evidence TikTok provided to back up its application, which included proof of its global recognition, usage, and enforcement of rights in other countries.

On the flip side, the Registrar’s counsel insisted that Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act isn’t exhaustive, allowing the Registrar to consider any fact deemed relevant in determining whether a mark is well-known. In this instance, the ban on the TikTok app, enacted under the Information Technology Act and driven by national security concerns, was seen as a significant factor that couldn’t be overlooked.

Relevant Law and Rules

Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 supplies an illustrative—rather than exhaustive—list of factors for assessing well-known status and expressly allows the Registrar to weigh “any fact” considered relevant.  Sections 11(7)-(9) refine that enquiry and clarify that use or registrationin India is not a pre-condition. Rule 124 of the 2017 Rules obliges the Registrar to apply these subsections in every well-known application. Separately, Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 empowers the Government to block online platforms on national-security grounds—the statutory foundation for the continuing TikTok ban.

Court’s Analysis

Can the Registrar legitimately base a refusal chiefly on the national ban?

The Court recognized that the Registrar’s order didn’t specify the legal provisions that needed to be considered specifically Sections 11(6) to 11(9). However, he noted that this omission alone wasn’t enough to invalidate the order. The judge highlighted that Section 11(6) permits the Registrar to take into account any relevant fact, not just the examples listed in the section. Thus, the Registrar had the discretion to view the ban on the TikTok app as a pertinent factor when deciding whether to classify the mark as a well-known trademark.

The judge went on to elaborate on the ban that the Indian government imposed. The Court pointed out that the TikTok ban was enacted under the Information Technology Act, citing concerns about India’s sovereignty and integrity, state defense, and public order.

The government also highlighted worries about potential misuse of the platform, such as data privacy issues, claims that the app’s servers were based in China, and reported cases of cyberbullying and inappropriate content involving women and children. Given these serious issues, the Registrar determined that it wouldn’t be suitable to recognize TikTok’s mark as well-known. Justice Pitale concurred with this reasoning, noting that adding a trademark to the well-known list isn’t just a formality; it’s a significant legal acknowledgment with far-reaching consequences. He pointed out that the application featuring the TikTok mark remains banned in India, and this fact, which is crucial to the current legal and constitutional landscape, was rightly taken into account by the Registrar. The judge also made it clear that while TikTok still enjoys legal protection as a registered trademark, it can’t be granted the special status of a well-known mark unless the surrounding legal and public policy conditions support such recognition.

Our Analysis

One of the main points to take away from this judgment is that the Court has made it clear that recognizing a mark as “well-known” isn’t just about how popular it is in the market or how many consumers it has. Instead, the decision takes a broader look at various factors, including national interest, law and order, and the overall public good. This ruling sets a significant precedent, indicating that even a globally recognized brand like TikTok can be denied well-known status if its application is banned or linked to issues that raise concerns under Indian law.

Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement (read with Article 6bis of the Paris Convention) anchors well-known protection in consumer recognition and confusion, saying nothing about withholding that status for security reasons. At first glance, India’s stance therefore appears to diverge from the letter of TRIPS. Yet TRIPS itself offers Article 73 provides a far-reaching security exception enabling any measure “which a Member considers necessary” for the protection of essential security interests. By folding the TikTok ban into the Section 11(6) inquiry, the Court implicitly relies on these very exceptions: the refusal can be viewed as a security-driven deviation authorised by Article 73. Whether that balance is ultimately just—or sets a precedent that stalls foreign investment—remains fertile ground for further scholarship.

Conclusion

In summary, the Bombay High Court has dismissed TikTok’s petition and upheld the Registrar’s decision. The judgment emphasizes that while TikTok is a registered trademark and enjoys basic protection under Indian trademark law, it doesn’t currently meet the criteria for the enhanced legal protection that comes with being recognized as a well-known mark. This decision is rooted in India’s national security and constitutional issues, rather than the brand’s popularity or usage. Until the ban on the TikTok app is lifted or reassessed by an appropriate authority, the brand’s legal status in India will remain limited to its registration and nothing beyond that.

This case is a strong reminder that trademark rights aren’t just shaped by how popular a brand is or how well consumers know it; they also depend on adhering to national laws and policies. Ultimately, a brand might be a household name worldwide, but to gain full recognition in India, it needs to fit within the country’s legal and constitutional framework.