Commemoration Or Commercialization? Battle Over “Operation Sindoor”

The significance behind naming this operation “Operation Sindoor” lies with the use of Sindoor, or vermilion powder, as a traditional marker of the marital status of Hindu women. The dash of vermilion powder on a bride's forehead is her holiest mark as she begins her journey as a bride for the rest of her life. It is put on by the husband during the wedding rites and is applied daily to mark his presence in a woman's life. It is only removed when she becomes a widow.

During the April 22 terrorist attack, many women lost their husbands, who were targeted because they were Hindu. The Indian government's choice of the name “Operation Sindoor” signaled its intention to avenge the widowed women. On social media, the Indian Army announced the strikes with a stark image that included a jar of spilt sindoor, which resembled spattered blood.

Within hours after the announcement of the operation, Reliance Industries Limited filed a trademark application for “Operation Sindoor”, with three more applications following thereafter. This not only raises ethical considerations regarding the filing but also raises a question that where should the line be drawn between honouring national events and exploiting them for commercial gain?

Under the Trademark Act of 1999, an applicant has to fulfil specific requirements to register their trademark. This means that the mark must be distinctive, capable of graphical representation, and not be descriptive or confusingly similar to existing trademarks. The application must also include necessary details like the applicant's information, the goods/services the mark will be used for, and relevant documents.

Section 46 of the Act indicates the proposed use of the trademark. This means that the applicant intends to use the mark in the future, but they haven't started using it yet in relation to the goods or services specified in the application. This allows businesses to secure trademark protection before they actually begin commercial activities. When the application is filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, the proprietor of the trademark should have a bona fide intent to use the mark in the future. It enables businesses to secure trademark rights before they launch their products or services, potentially preventing competitors from using the same or similar mark later. It is subject to cancellation if the mark is not used within 5 years from the date of registration. In the present context, each application marks the phrase as “proposed to be used”, indicating plans to deploy it for commercial purposes.

The four applications were submitted within twenty-four hours of the announcement; this included registrations from Reliance, a Mumbai-based Resident, a retired Indian Air Force officer and a Delhi-based lawyer, all of whom sought exclusive rights under Class 41 under NICE Classifications. Although the very next day, Reliance withdrew their application, stating that it was inadvertently filed by a junior employee without authorisation, two more applications were filed in this trademark race, including a Kochi-based resident and an ad-film maker from Surat. By Friday, twelve applications had been filed.

Class 41 covers services related to education, entertainment, and cultural activities, including services like education, training, amusement, and cultural events. It includes a wide range of activities, from providing educational materials and classes to offering entertainment, such as live performances, amusement parks, and film production. This category is often used by OTT platforms, production houses, broadcasters, and event companies, which suggests that “Operation Sindoor” could potentially become a film title, web series, or documentary brand. It is unfortunate that the government does not automatically have intellectual property rights over these military operation titles. So, in reality, these names are not only without protection from the state but also can be registered as a trademark by private people or organizations if the government does not step in.

After submission, the advocate, who was one of the applicants, had like other applicants, made motivated and truthful submissions. During the interview, when probed about any future film-making plans, he explained that he was going by the decision to donate all the money to war widows, that there was no intent to profit from the films, but this in itself would still raise the moral issue about the applications.

Banking on military operations causes various moral dilemmas within the social sphere. The commercialization issue at stake leads to the misuse of patriotism—celebrating yet not respecting the sincere memory of the fallen. If military victories or national disasters are utilized as brand assets, it means there is the risk the society supports the commoditization of collective memory. These alterations may reduce the gravity of upcoming military operations, render them issues without national importance, and make them mere intellectual property conflicts.

This isn't the only instance where trademark applications were filed related to national symbols or events. In Sable Waghire & Company v. Union Of India And Others, the petitioners sought protection of the trademark “Chhatrapati Shivaji” for their business of manufacturing bidis. The Supreme Court emphasized that certain names and emblems are protected under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and their unauthorised use in trademarks is prohibited. Moreover, in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh, the applicant made an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks to register a trade mark by the name “ramayan” with the device of a crown in Class 3 in respect of incense sticks (agarbattis, dhoops) and perfumeries, etc. The court found that using the exclusive name of the holy book “ramayan”, for getting it registered as a trademark for any commodity could not be permissible under the Act, hence making the registration invalid. The Delhi High Court, in Armasuisse v. The Trade Marks Registry & Anr., found that the use of the “SWISS MILITARY” appellation, even by itself and sans any accompanying embellishments or emblems, has the clear propensity of creating confusion in the mind of the public, regarding the origin of the goods on which the mark is used. Further, it was held that an ordinary person is not likely to presume that the impugned expression is being used for ordinary commercially traded goods as they are no related with Swiss military establishment. Therefore, adopting a trademark associated with military operations could mislead consumers into thinking that the goods are endorsed by or connected to military institutions, which would violate the principles of trademark registration.

Certain symbols, emblems are prohibited from use in trademarks, as per Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Although, military operation codenames are not listed as prohibited under the Act's Schedule, this makes them susceptible to registrations. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 gives the registry authority to reject misleading, objectionable or against public policy trademarks. Under Section 9(2) and Section 11 the registrar may refuse a mark if it implies a false link with national defence or could offend public opinion. Nevertheless, unless the government or other interested parties challenge it, there is no automatic bar against registering such terms now.

The filmmakers of Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019) freely used the name of the 2016 national military operation without any specific government approval for the film's release. When a copyright claim was raised, it was objected on the grounds that “no copyright exists on facts and ideas” when the public was aware of the facts of the operation. In addition, the title itself, “Surgical Strike” was never brought to court under the Emblems Act or the Trade Marks Act.

After announcement of “Operation Sindoor”, the movie industry rushed to claim title on the strike. Titles like “Mission Sindoor”, “Sindoor Ki Jung” and “Sindoor Ka Badla” and so on were used in over 30 applications for the registration of the brand with the term “Sindoor”. These applications did not call for or request any government action, nor nor were they prohibited under any current legislation.

At the end, the race to register IP rights to “Operation Sindoor” very much underlines how soon something that is born of collective courage can be sold in the shopping mall. Thus, if a tolerance for the abuse of heroic deeds occurs and the haziness of the brand involved persists, the danger exists that we will in the end no longer be able to picture the heroes themselves or the common people who were the long-suffering ones, or even the changed communities. To sum up, the real memento does not lie in legal documents or profit but in the memory that we still share. It is in the stories we pass on, the thank-yous we exchange in private moments, and the public spaces we make meaningful. By depending more on community acts of remembrance rather than commercial logos, we facilitate “Operation Sindoor” remaining to be meaningful for all.

Views are personal