The Chutiyaram Trademark and Its Legal Aspects: When trademark cannot be granted?

Index

1. Introduction: When Branding Collides with Cultural Boundaries
2. The Origins of the Controversy
3. Legal Hurdles: Why "Chutiyaram" Faces an Uphill Battle
4. Public Outcry and Cultural Sensitivities
5. The Applicant's Defense: Reclaiming or Exploiting Language?
6. What's Next for "Chutiyaram"?
7. Conclusion: A Litmus Test for Ethical Branding

The "Chutiyaram" Trademark Dispute: Offense, Law, and Branding Ethics

Introduction

In India's fast-changing startup and fashion world, branding has emerged as a dominant force of market differentiation. But where does creative liberty end and social responsibility start? This is the central issue of the Chutiyaram trademark dispute, in which a bid to get a widely understood derogatory term registered as a brand has sparked legal, ethical, and cultural arguments.

The dispute is not merely over a trademark application-it is a test case for India's moral and legal standards on branding, free speech, and public decency. While Western markets have been open to risqué marketing practices, India's legal system remains wedded to upholding public morality at the expense of commercial freedoms.

The issue calls into question whether it is possible to reframe abusive language as comedy or whether using it in business automatically normalises and legitimises verbal abuse.

This case calls for a more thorough examination of the ways in which language, law, and commerce interact as it moves through the legal system.

Is it possible for a fundamentally obscene word to be reclaimed in a brand? Is commercial need sufficient to take priority over linguistic and cultural sensitivities? How and where does the law define limits between artistic creativity and public propriety? These are the issues at stake in the Chutiyaramdebate, and answering them will give shape to trademark law in India's future.

The Genesis of the Row: A Trademark That Caused Outrage

At the beginning of 2025, an unknown business entity approached the Indian Trademark Registry for registration of the word "Chutiyaram" under Class 25, which covers clothes, footwear, and headgear.

The name is itself a hybrid of the Hindi insult "chutiya" used to refer to a person as foolish or incompetent and "Ram," a name that is weighed very religiously and culturally in India. The strange mix quickly gained the attention of the public, with many viewing it as an inherently bad and insulting name.

Public documents show that the application, remains under consideration. Lawyers expect challenges to be filed under Section 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bans the registration of marks scandalous, obscene, or likely to cause grievance to religious feelings.

This provision is commonly invoked in instances where the use of a term in commerce is found to be offensive to the public at large or particular communities.

Comparisons have already been made to global trademark controversies, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Matal v. Tam, in which the court invalidated the prohibition on disparaging trademarks, holding that such a prohibition infringed free speech.

India's legal system is, however, different in that public morality tends to override absolute free speech in business and branding. Controversy around Chutiyaram is therefore more than just an exercise in litigation, but one of discourse in the general matter of language. Legal Hurdles:

Why "Chutiyaram" Faces an Uphill Battle

Trademark registrations for marks containing scandalous, obscene, or offending words are refused under Section 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The rationale behind this bar is to prevent Indian brands from diluting cultural sensibilities and making derogatory language mainstream.

Legal scholars have indicated that Chutiyaram would find it difficult to succeed in this legal test. Delhi-based intellectual property lawyer Rohan Sinha has said the Trademark Registry will necessarily turn down the application on grounds of the word's inherently objectionable nature.

According to him, the legislation demands that the trademark examiners weigh the word's impact on society at large and not only the commercial purposes of the applicant. This perspective is reinforced by previous legal cases, including the 2020 denial of "Bhenchod" for clothing labeling and the denial in 2018 of "Madarchod", both of which were held to be unsuitable for use commercially.

The case turns on whether the applicant can make the argument that "Chutiyaram" has become a satirical or playful term, as opposed to an insulting one. But with the legal precedent of offensive trademarks, the prospects for approval seem remote.

Public Outcry and Cultural Sensitivities

Social media has played a key role in heightening public opposition to the trademark. Hashtags like #StopChutiyaram started trending on Twitter/X, with most users condemning the move to commercialize an insult. Cultural bodies like the Hindi Sahitya Sabha have also weighed in, making formal objections and contending that such branding decisions undermine the dignity of the Hindi language and encourage linguistic degradation.

The debate has also led to a free speech vs. censorship debate in branding. Some advertising professionals opined that edgy branding is a potent means to reach younger audiences, using cases like "FCUK" (French Connection UK) and "Satan Shoes" in the West.

Arjun Mehta, a Mumbai-based marketer, had contended that limiting brands from employing inflammatory words suppresses creativity and brand differentiation. But others contend that India's cultural environment is different, where respect for tradition and language is more important than Western-style shock advertising.

A 2023 Brand Insight India survey indicated that 68% of Indian consumers are against brands using foul language or insults, with family values, cultural background, and religious sentiments cited as the top reasons by the respondents. These statistics indicate that brands trying to be edgy in India have to walk carefully since public opinion goes a long way in brand success.

Applicant's Defense: Reclaiming or Misusing Language

The owner of the trademark application has remained anonymous, although leaked documents indicated that it was a streetwear brand targeting the youth. Upon legal challenges, the applicant countered that the term "Chutiyaram" is satirical and self-mocking, aimed at appealing to Gen Z youth who appreciate irony and rebellion.

Yet, sociologists and linguists have rejected this claim, asserting that corporate use of slurs is problematic, especially when the term has traditionally been employed to insult and belittle. Sociologist Dr. Nandini Rao writes that reclaiming derogatory terms demands consent from communities, and for-profit business using a slur as a brand name is more exploitative than liberating.

What's in Store for "Chutiyaram"?

After its initial false clearance, the Chutiyaram trademark request was officially withdrawn by the Trademark Registry from March 2025. Due to popular outcry and investigation through the law, this instant about-face came as a result of objections submitted under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibit scandalous, vulgar, and religiously offending trademarks. The pullout indicates that the apps will never succeed under the current legal system since India has a strong precedent against trademarks that have infringed on the law.

While the applicant could have challenged the rejection before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board on free speech grounds under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, India's courts have long enforced reasonable restrictions on offensive commercial speech. With this pull-out, the Chutiyaram trademark issue is resolved, upholding India's stance that public decency and cultural sensitivity prevail over unfettered branding rights

Conclusion

The Chutiyaram controversy goes beyond trademark law-it is a reflection of India's changing commercial and cultural environment. As India modernizes, the legal system is under greater pressure to balance entrepreneurial freedom with societal values. This case will probably be a precedent for future branding disputes, deciding whether India is following Western liberalization in marketing or whether it continues to prioritize cultural and linguistic respect.

Trademark attorney Priya Reddy maybe puts it best:

"This is more than a legal fight over a word. It's about establishing the limits of respect and responsibility in a world where everything, even language, is up for sale."

Whether the word "Chutiyaram" is ultimately granted or refused, this case reinforces a simple truth about branding-words matter, and their meaning extends well beyond business.

FAQs

1. What is the "Chutiyaram" trademark controversy about?

The controversy revolves around an attempt to register "Chutiyaram" as a trademark under Class 25 (clothing, footwear, and headgear) in India. The term is a combination of "chutiya", a widely recognized Hindi slur, and "Ram", a common name with religious significance. The application sparked outrage, with critics arguing that the term is offensive and should not be commercially exploited. The case has raised debates about freedom of expression, public morality, and the legal limits of branding in India.

2. Why is the trademark facing legal challenges?

Under Section 9(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a mark cannot be registered if it is scandalous, obscene, or likely to hurt religious sentiments.

Since "Chutiyaram" is widely considered derogatory, legal experts believe that the Trademark Registry is likely to reject the application. Past rejections of similar trademarks, such as "Bhenchod" (2020) and "Madarchod" (2018), further indicate that offensive language is not accepted for branding in India.

3. What has been the public reaction to the trademark application?

The application has triggered significant public backlash, especially on social media, where hashtags like #StopChutiyaram have trended. Many cultural organizations and activists argue that such branding normalizes abusive language and degrades linguistic dignity. However, some free speech advocates believe that brands should have the right to push creative boundaries, similar to controversial trademarks allowed in Western markets.

4. Can the applicant defend "Chutiyaram" as a creative or satirical brand?

The applicant, believed to be a youth-focused streetwear brand, has defended the use of "Chutiyaram" as a satirical and self-deprecating term meant to resonate with Gen Z humor and internet culture. They argue that branding should be edgy and disruptive, much like the success of controversial brands in international markets. However, legal experts argue that the commercial appropriation of offensive language-especially without community consent-crosses the line into exploitation rather than creative expression.

5. What happens if the trademark application is rejected?

If the Trademark Registry rejects the application, the applicant may appeal to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. They could attempt to argue that the rejection violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. However, Indian courts have historically upheld "reasonable restrictions" on free speech, particularly when public morality and decency are at stake. Given the precedents, a successful appeal is unlikely.