No Bar On Trademarking Hindu Deity Names If Distinctive: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that there is nothing in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that prevents the registration or enforcement of trademarks merely because they contain the names of Hindu gods or deities.

Granting interim relief to Mumbai-based Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the court held that such marks are entitled to protection once they are validly registered and have acquired distinctiveness through use.

Justice Arif S Doctor, while restraining Delhi-based Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited from using “Siyaram” as part of its corporate name or trademark, observed,

“There is no provision in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prohibiting registration or enforcement of marks comprising names of the Hindu Gods or Deities.”

The court noted that Section 9 of the law only bars marks that lack distinctiveness and said that “Siyaram” had no descriptive connection with textiles and had acquired a strong identity over decades of use.

Siyaram Silk Mills told the court that it has been using the “SIYARAM” mark since the late 1970s and holds multiple trademark registrations, the earliest dating back to 1984. It said the brand has built nationwide recognition through long-standing use in suiting and shirting fabrics, supported by substantial sales and advertising.

The company said it discovered in 2007 that Stanford Siyaram had adopted the name “Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited” and was selling textile products under the label “Apricott—a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.”

Stanford Siyaram opposed the suit by arguing that “Siyaram” is the name of a Hindu deity and that no monopoly could be claimed over it. It also claimed prior use through an alleged family-run business said to be operating as “Siyaram Fashion Store.” It also relied on its registration as a composite label mark and argued that Siyaram Silk Mills had delayed in approaching the court.

The court rejected these defenses. It found no evidence to show that the alleged family-run store was identified exclusively with the mark “Siyaram,” noting that the material on record showed it to be a multi-brand outlet.

On the deity-based argument, the court observed that once a mark is validly registered and has acquired a reputation through use, that fact alone cannot defeat an action for infringement or passing off.

The court also clarified that registration of a composite label does not confer exclusive rights over its individual elements. Referring to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, it held that registration of “Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.” did not give Stanford Siyaram any exclusive right over the word “SIYARAM.”

Granting the interim injunction, the court said consumer confusion was likely.

“One cannot be unmindful of the fact that the customers would be from a cross section of society, many of whom would, on seeing “Siyaram” in the Defendants' mark, immediately associate the same with the Plaintiff's goods, especially given the manner in which the Defendants' mark appears,” the court observed.

Holding that the adoption was prima facie dishonest, it restrained Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited and its associates from using “SIYARAM” as part of their trade name.