From battlefield to branding war: Trademark claims over India’s military mission ignite national outrage
In May 2025, India launched a military operation named “Operation Sindoor” in response to a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The attack claimed the lives of 26 civilians. The Indian armed forces targeted terrorist camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was widely covered in the news and sparked strong emotions across the country. The name “Operation Sindoor” quickly became a symbol of bravery, patriotism, and national pride.
However, within hours of the announcement of the operation, controversy erupted. Several companies and individuals rushed to file applications to trademark the term “Operation Sindoor.” Among them was Jio Studios, owned by Reliance Industries, which applied for the trademark under Class 41, which is related to films, entertainment, and education.
Public Backlash
This quick move to trademark the name of a military operation caused major public outrage. Many people felt that trying to profit from an event related to national security and loss of lives was unethical. Social media platforms were filled with criticism. Citizens, veterans, and public figures questioned the morality of turning a serious national operation into a business opportunity.
Due to the intense criticism, Reliance Industries released a statement saying that the trademark application was filed without proper approval. The company claimed that a junior employee had filed it by mistake and decided to withdraw the application to avoid further controversy.
More Trademark Applications Filed
Reliance was not the only one. At least four or five other individuals and groups also applied to register “Operation Sindoor” as a trademark. These included a retired Air Force officer, a Delhi-based lawyer, and some citizens from different parts of India. Some said they wanted to make a film or documentary about the operation. Others said they would use any profits made from the name to support the families of those affected by the attack.
Despite their claims, many people questioned the real intentions behind these actions. The idea of claiming ownership of a name that represents a sensitive national operation was seen by many as an attempt to benefit from a tragic situation.
Legal Action and Court Involvement
As the controversy grew, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court of India. The petition argued that names like “Operation Sindoor” should never be allowed for private trademark registration. The petitioner pointed out that such names represent national sentiment, the courage of soldiers, and the sorrow of victims’ families. Giving exclusive rights over such names could be dangerous and disrespectful.
The plea asked the court to protect the term from being used for commercial purposes. It urged the judiciary to consider such matters seriously, especially when they involve national interest and the image of the armed forces.
Trademark Law and National Sentiment
Under Indian law, trademarks can be registered under various classes, depending on the type of service or product. Class 41, in this case, covers movies, series, and other educational or entertainment content. While the law allows individuals or companies to trademark names for business purposes, Section 9 of the Trademark Act does not permit registration of terms that are against public policy, deceive the public, or hurt national or religious feelings.
Experts argue that giving someone exclusive rights to a term like “Operation Sindoor” would go against public interest. They believe that such names belong to the nation and should not be used for personal gain. Allowing this could open the door for others to try and brand future military operations or national missions, which would be highly inappropriate.
A Bigger Debate on Branding National Events
This controversy has sparked a broader debate in India about the ethics of branding national events. Should companies and individuals be allowed to use the names of military missions, disaster relief efforts, or national tragedies for profit? Or should these names be protected from commercial use, similar to national symbols like the flag or anthem?
The incident shows a growing trend where people try to cash in on anything that gains public attention. From naming a product after a political event to making a movie about a real-life tragedy, the line between storytelling and business is becoming thinner. However, when it comes to events involving national security, lives lost, and military action, most people believe there should be clear boundaries.
The Role of Trademark Registry and the Government
The Trademark Registry, which receives and processes such applications, plays an important role in ensuring that sensitive names are not misused. There are calls for the Registry to develop stronger rules to automatically reject trademark applications related to national operations or tragedies.
The government may also need to step in to create a list of names that should not be registered for commercial use. This would work like the way some names and emblems are protected by law, ensuring they cannot be used in advertising, branding, or entertainment without official approval.
Final Thoughts
The attempt to trademark “Operation Sindoor” has triggered a nationwide discussion on the ethics and legality of branding national events. What started as a military mission to protect the nation turned into a debate about profits, intellectual property, and public values.
This issue is not just about one company or one event. It reflects the need for more careful thought when dealing with names that hold emotional and patriotic value. As the case moves through the courts, the decisions made will likely influence how such situations are handled in the future. There is now a stronger call to protect the dignity of national missions and prevent their misuse in the name of business.
The “Operation Sindoor” trademark controversy may fade with time, but its lessons will stay relevant, shaping how law, ethics, and patriotism interact in the age of media and marketing.
