On the recent controversy concerning the name of the newly inaugurated Jagannath Dham temple in Digha and reports of Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (“SJTMC”) seeking to protect terms like Shree Jagannath Dham, Srimandir, Mahaprasad, Nilachal Dham and Bada Dand as trademarks, Subhalaxmi Mukherjee writes on incorrect reporting on the issue and whether these terms can be protected as IPs. Subhalaxmi is a third-year B.Sc LL.B. (Hons.) student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata. She is interested in a wide range of public and commercial law subjects, including intellectual property, gender rights, and international arbitration. Her previous posts can be accessed here.
Can Purely Religious Terms be Trademarked? The Curious Case of ‘Shree Jagannath Dham’
By Subhalaxmi Mukherjee
The Shakespearean adage “What’s in a name?” haunts the intellectual property (“IP”) narrative and has now ventured into religion. The conflict arose after the newly inaugurated Digha Jagannath temple was named ‘Jagannath Dham’, drawing flak from multiple stakeholders, including the BJP-led Odisha Government, as the term has traditionally been associated with the 12th-century Jagannath Temple in Puri, Odisha. Multiple arguments based on religious scriptures, historical recitals and cultural ownership have emerged, with the primary dispute centring on whether the naming of the Digha Temple has ‘infringed’ upon the Puri Temple. The nature and basis of this alleged infringement, however, remain undetermined. Interestingly, amidst this chaos, the Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (“SJTMC”) has sought to legally protect terms like Shree Jagannath Dham, Srimandir, Mahaprasad, Nilachal Dham and Bada Danda, along with the temple’s logo, by attempting to trademark them.
This blog post comments on two issues: first, the unclear and often befuddling journalistic reporting that has plagued this matter and second, the possibility of extending IP protection to purely religious terms and logos.
Trademark, Patent or Copyright? The Confusion around the Jagannath Dham Matter
Whether IP protection can extend to purely religious terms and logos becomes a secondary issue in light of the confusing and factually misleading journalism surrounding the matter. Taking the example of two popular news websites (see here and here), terms such as trademark, copyright, and patent have been used interchangeably throughout their pieces, disregarding the distinct meanings and implications each of these concepts carries. For instance, while one of the pieces begins by noting SJTMC’s attempt to trademark certain terms and the temple’s logo, the very next paragraph incorrectly states that these terms are being patented. Similarly, another piece quotes the Chief Administrator of the Temple, Arabinda Padhee, as saying that ‘trademarking or copyrighting’ will be an important step in protecting terms intrinsically associated with the shrine, overlooking the fact that trademarks and copyrights are entirely distinct forms of legal protection.
For the purposes of this blog, we proceed on the assumption that the IP protection being sought is in the nature of a trademark under Section 2 (zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”), since terms like Shree Jagannath Dham or Srimandir do not fall within the scope of an original work of authorship or an invention. That said, this remains an assumption given the factually inconsistent and unchecked reporting currently available in the public domain.
Can Faith find Protection in IP Law?
Technically, there is no bar on registering the name or symbol of a public deity under the Act. The usual obstacle, however, arises under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act. Section 9(2) lays down the absolute grounds for refusal of trademark registration, and clause (b) prohibits the registration of any matter “likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section of the citizens of India”. There are two rationales behind this prohibition. First, religious symbols and the names of gods are generally considered part of the public domain, meant for collective use rather than individual commercial monopolization. Second, since these terms are often generic or commonly used, establishing distinctiveness becomes inherently difficult. Thus, while trademark registration is not impossible, the process is fraught with difficulties, and challenges are likely to persist even after registration. For instance, in Lal Babu Priyadarshi v Amritpal Singh(Supreme Court, 2015), the Court imposed a blanket prohibition on the registration of the names of holy books as trademarks, given the emotive value they hold for a significant section of society (for a detailed discussion, see here).
However, the legitimacy of a blanket ban on trademarking purely religious matters is debatable, since the provision itself does not impose such a ban. Instead, it sets the threshold of “likely to hurt,” which implies that there may be circumstances where such trademarking could be permitted. Buttressing this point, it has also been stated in the draft Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure, 2015 (pages 59 and 60) that the use of religious terms and symbols in trade is a common practice in India. Such use is not inherently offensive; it becomes objectionable only in specific contexts, for instance, when religious names or symbols are used in relation to items like footwear. This approach has also found support in judicial pronouncements. For instance, in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. District Judge (Allahabad High Court, 2005), the Court held that trademarking a religious icon does not, by itself, make it offensive to the public. Likewise, in Shyam Steel Industries v. Shyam Sel (Calcutta High Court, 2019), the Court observed that there is no absolute principle prohibiting the registration of purely religious terms, and that evidence of genericity or potential public unrest must be produced by the respondent, making validity a case-by-case determination.
Hence, whether SJTMC will ultimately succeed in acquiring the desired trademarks will depend on multiple factors. Firstly, it must establish that these terms have acquired distinctiveness in connection with the shrine. While Shree Jagannath Dham may qualify as distinctive due to its historical, religious, and institutional association with Puri, generic terms like Srimandir and Mahaprasad may lack the requisite distinctiveness to be exclusively tied to the temple, due to their widespread usage in common parlance. Secondly, it must be able to withstand potential challenges under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act. However, the inconsistent jurisprudence on this issue makes any prediction uncertain. For instance, if faced with a challenge, the adjudicating court may adopt a progressive approach, as seen in Mangalore Beedi Works or Shyam Steel Industries, and hold that trademarking the impugned terms to safeguard a historic temple’s cultural exclusivity is not likely to offend the public. Conversely, the court may follow the reasoning in Lal Babu Priyadarshi and refuse registration simply on the ground that it would result in the monopolization of a deity’s name.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, while the registration of purely religious terms such as Shree Jagannath Dham, Srimandir, Mahaprasad, Nilachal Dham and Bada Danda, as well as religious symbols, is technically possible, the legal hurdles before and after registration make their tenability uncertain. Whether SJTMC will ultimately succeed in sustaining these trademarks will depend on the court’s discretion, especially given the patchy jurisprudence on the subject, ranging from blanket prohibitions to more progressive interpretations. Notably, the problem is compounded by factually inaccurate and confusing media reporting, which not only misleads lay readers but also hinders serious academic engagement, since even basic questions, such as the precise form of IP protection being sought, are left unclear.