Bombay High Court Refuses 'Tik Tok' Well-Known Trademark Status

Bombay High Court Refuses 'Tik Tok' Well-Known Trademark Status. The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, refused to recognize ‘Tik Tok’ as a well-known trademark under the Indian legal framework. The decision not only underscores the stringent criteria required for a trademark to earn the coveted "well-known" status but also serves as a cautionary tale for global companies seeking recognition in Indian jurisdictions without substantial domestic evidence.
The Concept of Well-Known Trademarks
Under Indian trademark law, well-known trademarks enjoy heightened protection even in cases where goods or services are dissimilar. The basis for such recognition is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly:

Section 11(6) – It lays down the criteria the Registrar or court must consider while determining whether a trademark is well-known.

Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 – It provides the procedural mechanism for a party to request that their mark be recognized as well-known by filing Form TM-M with supporting documents and fees.

For a trademark to be declared well-known, the applicant must demonstrate widespread recognition among a substantial segment of the Indian public, irrespective of whether the trademark is registered in India or not. 
The Case Background: TIK TOK vs. TikTik Foods Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose when Tik Tok (ByteDance Technology) filed a suit against a local food business operating under the name ‘TikTik Foods Pvt. Ltd.’ alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Tik Tok contended that the use of a similar-sounding name infringed its brand and sought protection on the grounds that ‘Tik Tok’ was a well-known mark, warranting special protection beyond registered goods and services.
However, the Bombay High Court, after examining the submissions, declined to accept Tik Tok’s claim of being a well-known trademark under Indian law. 
Reasons for Refusal
The High Court’s reasoning was rooted in the statutory framework and evidentiary standards:
Lack of Evidence as Required Under Section 11(6)
The court noted that Tik Tok had not furnished sufficient evidence to show the extent of its recognition among the Indian public. As per Section 11(6), courts must consider:

The number of actual or potential consumers in India.

The geographical extent and duration of use.

The extent of promotion, including advertising and publicity.

The record of enforcement and recognition by courts or trademark registries.

The court found Tik Tok’s submissions insufficient on these fronts, especially due to the app being banned in India since June 2020 under the Information Technology Act, 2000 for national security concerns. Therefore, continued market presence and recognition were not established.
Premature Invocation of Well-Known Status
Tik Tok's attempt to secure well-known status in an infringement proceeding, rather than through a separate declaration under Rule 124, was criticized. The Court held that while courts may recognize a trademark as well-known incidentally in litigation, such recognition cannot be granted lightly, especially without comprehensive evidence.
Phonetic Similarity Not Sufficient Alone
Although there was phonetic similarity between ‘Tik Tok’ and ‘TikTik’, the court ruled that this alone was not enough to presume deception, especially since both parties operated in distinct industries — one in digital content, the other in food services. 
Legal Implications of the Decision
This verdict highlights critical legal standards and procedural expectations:

Global fame is not enough: Even if a brand is internationally recognized, it must prove its recognition and goodwill within India through concrete data.

Post-ban market absence matters: If a brand is no longer accessible or active in the Indian market, courts may deem its consumer base as diminished.

Rule 124 procedure is crucial: For well-known status, following the prescribed route under Rule 124 is strongly advisable to avoid judicial reluctance.

Key Takeaways

Legal Provision

Summary

Section 11(6), Trade Marks Act, 1999

Lists factors to determine a well-known trademark

Rule 124, Trade Marks Rules, 2017

Provides the procedure to apply for well-known status

Section 11(10)

Directs authorities to protect well-known marks against unfair use or dilution

Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision to deny Tik Tok the well-known trademark status is a significant precedent reinforcing the importance of local evidence, procedural compliance, and the territorial nature of trademark rights. While the Tik Tok brand may enjoy international fame, Indian trademark law demands grounded, India-specific proof of reputation, use, and recognition.
Global companies must therefore ensure robust brand enforcement and localized documentation when seeking special protections under Indian law — especially when their services or presence in the country has ceased.

The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, refused to recognize ‘Tik Tok’ as a well-known trademark under the Indian legal framework. The decision not only underscores the stringent criteria required for a trademark to earn the coveted "well-known" status but also serves as a cautionary tale for global companies seeking recognition in Indian jurisdictions without substantial domestic evidence.

The Concept of Well-Known Trademarks

Under Indian trademark law, well-known trademarks enjoy heightened protection even in cases where goods or services are dissimilar. The basis for such recognition is enshrined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly:

Section 11(6) – It lays down the criteria the Registrar or court must consider while determining whether a trademark is well-known.
Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 – It provides the procedural mechanism for a party to request that their mark be recognized as well-known by filing Form TM-M with supporting documents and fees.

The Case Background: TIK TOK vs. TikTik Foods Pvt. Ltd.

The dispute arose when Tik Tok (ByteDance Technology) filed a suit against a local food business operating under the name ‘TikTik Foods Pvt. Ltd.’ alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Tik Tok contended that the use of a similar-sounding name infringed its brand and sought protection on the grounds that ‘Tik Tok’ was a well-known mark, warranting special protection beyond registered goods and services.

However, the Bombay High Court, after examining the submissions, declined to accept Tik Tok’s claim of being a well-known trademark under Indian law.

Reasons for Refusal

The High Court’s reasoning was rooted in the statutory framework and evidentiary standards:

Lack of Evidence as Required Under Section 11(6)

The court noted that Tik Tok had not furnished sufficient evidence to show the extent of its recognition among the Indian public. As per Section 11(6), courts must consider:

The number of actual or potential consumers in India.
The geographical extent and duration of use.
The extent of promotion, including advertising and publicity.
The record of enforcement and recognition by courts or trademark registries.

Premature Invocation of Well-Known Status

Tik Tok's attempt to secure well-known status in an infringement proceeding, rather than through a separate declaration under Rule 124, was criticized. The Court held that while courts may recognize a trademark as well-known incidentally in litigation, such recognition cannot be granted lightly, especially without comprehensive evidence.

Phonetic Similarity Not Sufficient Alone

Although there was phonetic similarity between ‘Tik Tok’ and ‘TikTik’, the court ruled that this alone was not enough to presume deception, especially since both parties operated in distinct industries — one in digital content, the other in food services.

Legal Implications of the Decision

This verdict highlights critical legal standards and procedural expectations:

Global fame is not enough: Even if a brand is internationally recognized, it must prove its recognition and goodwill within India through concrete data.
Post-ban market absence matters: If a brand is no longer accessible or active in the Indian market, courts may deem its consumer base as diminished.
Rule 124 procedure is crucial: For well-known status, following the prescribed route under Rule 124 is strongly advisable to avoid judicial reluctance.

Key Takeaways

Legal Provision	Summary
Section 11(6), Trade Marks Act, 1999	Lists factors to determine a well-known trademark
Rule 124, Trade Marks Rules, 2017	Provides the procedure to apply for well-known status
Section 11(10)	Directs authorities to protect well-known marks against unfair use or dilution

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision to deny Tik Tok the well-known trademark status is a significant precedent reinforcing the importance of local evidence, procedural compliance, and the territorial nature of trademark rights. While the Tik Tok brand may enjoy international fame, Indian trademark law demands grounded, India-specific proof of reputation, use, and recognition.

Global companies must therefore ensure robust brand enforcement and localized documentation when seeking special protections under Indian law — especially when their services or presence in the country has ceased.