WHEN WAR BECOMES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Devansh R Kumar, NLUO B.B.A. LL.B. student, explores law's dynamic intersections, aiming to contribute meaningfully to IPR/TMT and Ankita Priyadarshini Nayak, NLUO B.A. LL.B. student, explores law with keen interest in IPR and fashion law.

India’s swift, precision missile strikes against terrorist camps in PoK and Pakistan in response to the devastating Pahalgam attack was categorized as “Operation Sindoor.”  The term erupted into public consciousness on May 7, 2025. Simultaneously, the trademark registry experienced a sharp increase in applications seeking to trademark the operation.

In a bizarre turn of events, an operation stemming from geopolitical tensions became a contest for intellectual property rights. In India alone, authorities received at least 14 distinct trademark applications covering multiple business categories. The Spearhead of the application is Class 41, with applications even extending to Class 25, showcasing a clear intent to utilize the name for documentaries, series or other media ventures with possible branding extending to clothing and merchandise.

The rush wasn’t confined to India. Individuals in the US as well as in the UK filed applications to trademark the name. Most notably, homegrown Conglomerate Reliance Industries via Jio Studios temporarily joined the trend with its own Class 41 application on May 7th, only to withdraw it within 24 hours, seeing public outcry, attributing the application to an error made by an unauthorized junior employee. This retraction highlighted the ethical tightrope and fierce controversy surrounding the commercialization of the name, which originated from national and military sacrifice.

Ethics Under Fire: Patriotism or Property?

After 2019, movies like Uri: The Surgical Strike have amplified the national sentiment associated with military operations. There have even been instances where terms like Surgical Strike have been trademarked, reflecting how deeply such events have entered the commercial and cultural mainstream. The rush to trademark Operation Sindoor further illustrates how media coverage and geopolitical attention can shift the narrative of military operations. While the public may associate these terms with national pride, private entities increasingly view them through the lens of commercial value. As a result, the battlefield now extends beyond geopolitical borders to include trademark and intellectual property courts.

Patriotism is an emotional feeling of love, allegiance, and belongingness to one's nation. It is a subjective and individual feeling that private interests cannot buy or sell. Therefore, when sacrifices made are used to advance commercial benefit, it can be labelled as opportunism while also raising ethical issues of public memory versus private interest.

Moreover, military operations are a significant part of the history that shapes a nation. Thus, trademarking these operations grants private entities many exclusive legal rights, rights to promote and tailor the narrative in a more commercially consumable content with selective representation of history. This phenomenon may lead to narrative hijacking that can affect the way the future generation views the past, and a potential reduction of national identity into intellectual property. 

By enabling such commodification, there is a possibility that future generations might engage with historical events through branded narratives rather than collective history. Therefore, while trademark laws provide protection and exclusivity, scrutiny is required to strike an appropriate balance between commercial objectives, ethical responsibility, and the collective interest of society.

Legal Frontlines: Can 'Operation Sindoor' Be Trademarked?

Indian law

The rush to trademark the term “Operation Sindoor.” Highlights a significant misunderstanding of the Indian law. Moreover, it is an effort to commercialize a term that is of national importance, something our legal system is aimed to prevent.

Under Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, trademarks can be refused if they lack uniqueness, i.e. those that don't identify the commercial origin of goods and services. “Operation Sindoor” does not identify a brand, nor is it a unique term. It is a widely recognized label for a state-led Military Operation. It lacks the distinctiveness to pass through the Trademark offices.

Further, under Section 9(2)(a) of the act, trademarks can be refused if they are likely to cause confusion, i.e. terms that could deceive or mislead people are to be refused. Using this term commercially would mislead consumers into thinking that the commercial usage is endorsed by the government or the military when in reality, there is none.

The strongest cause of Rejection, however, lies in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Under Section 3, and more specifically Clause 7 of its Schedule, the use of names suggesting a government connection for commercial purposes is explicitly barred without prior approvalThe term “Operation Sindoor” falls under this prohibition, as it is inherently tied to nation defense.

This has been seen before when trademarks have been filed for sensitive events and have been rejected, such as trademarks for the term “26/11”, “Nirbhaya”, and “MH370” (Malaysian Airlines Disappearance). Moreover, an attempt to trademark the word “Kargil Warriors” was also rejected. Prima facie the term may fall into this category but certain grey areas still persist.

Grey Zones and Legal Loopholes

Indian trademark law does not automatically exclude defense codenames. Any person can apply to register a trademark, subject only to its uniqueness/distinctiveness. In practice, a person can file trademarks under Section 18 of the Act which would be further examined under Section 9 of the act as stated earlier. Even with a strong chance of rejection, the allowance of the application of trademarks wastes valuable resources of the government.

While there is a strong cause of rejection, Military Codewords are not explicitly stated in the Emblems Act schedule. This highlights a major flaw in our legal system where military names currently sit in a legal grey area. They are not defined as protected “Official” insignia or slogans, therefore, private parties can and have filed for them. Interestingly, despite the public outcry against military operations being trademarked, there exists precedents where operations have been trademarked. “Operation Khukri” was trademarked under Class 41 by Abundantia Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, “Pulwama: Surgical Strikes 2” and “BALAKOT: Surgical Strikes 2” were trademarked under classes 38 and 41 by Aetn18 Media Private Ltd. 

This illustrates that while in theory the trademark system rejects the applications under Section 9, in practice, military codenames have both been refused and registered, creating a contradictory precedent. Without explicit statutory protection, entities can exploit this inconsistency to obtain exclusive rights. This uncertainty leads the government into resource-intensive cancellation proceedings, which would jeopardize the public-domain status of these terms. Only by amending the Trademarks Act or the Emblems Act can India safeguard these names from commercial sensationalization. 

Global Moves: Trademarking Operation Sindoor Abroad

As there have been trademark applications for “Operation Sindoor” in countries like the US and the UK, it becomes crucial to analyze the trademark provisions in these countries as well and how it might affect its operation in India. 

In the US, the trademark application has been filed under International Class 041, which covers 'providing a trademarked entertainment title for licensing or sale to production companies, streaming services, or distributors'. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows trademark filings on an ‘intent to use’ basis, which means that, in this case the applicant hasn’t made use of the trademark but intends to do so in the future. However, in the US, the Department of Defense owns and regulates the trademark of its operations, services, and emblems, leaving no room for attempts at commercialization. 

Similarly, in the UK, the application has been filed in the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) under Classes 35, 38, and 41, which includes advertising, telecommunications, and education-related services. Interestingly, the UK trademark laws also strictly prohibit any attempt to trademark things that have even a slight resemblance to the Royal arms or any similar insignia or device.

This raises questions about the applicability of these trademark applications in India. The Madrid Protocol, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), enables trademark owners to seek protection in multiple countries through a single international application. India, along with the US and the UK, is a signatory to this treaty.

The Protocol simplifies international trademark registration by centralizing filings, reducing costs, and eliminating the need to apply separately in each jurisdiction. For Indian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, this offers a strategic advantage. However, aligning these international registrations with India’s enforcement mechanisms may still pose practical challenges. Nonetheless, trademark rights are territorial in nature, and a registered trademark in the US and the UK does not automatically grant trademark rights in India. In order to gain legal enforceability in India, the mark must either be registered domestically or extended through the Madrid Protocol with a specific designation of India in the application. Nonetheless, the fact that Indian military operations are internationally trademarkable raises security and ethical concerns. From a security standpoint, international trademarking of sensitive military operations can expose confidential matters and strategic information to foreign jurisdictions, raising questions on sovereignty and misuse.  

Moreover, this highlights gaps in India’s Statutory protection, while other countries maintain stricter controls, India’s inconsistent approach has led to contradictory precedents. To prevent misuse and uphold National Security Interests, Legislative reforms become a necessity.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights the way acts of patriotism can be objects of commercialization, reducing the sacrifice to a trademark that can be litigated upon. Moreover, a thin boundary between public sentiment and IP laws reflects a policy blind spot that may lead to distortion of narrative in important historical events. This shift from patriotism to commercialisation marks a deeper change in how national security events are perceived and packaged. The rush to trademark “Operation Sindoor” signals not just opportunism but a growing blur between national memory and market strategy. As national operations turn into brandable assets, the ethical and legal frameworks governing such actions must evolve. Otherwise, symbols of sacrifice risk becoming mere commodities—owned not by the nation, but by the first to file.