Introduction
Want to learn the fundamentals of Trademark Law? Read our complete Trademark Law Guide.
One often hears about this case being used as an example, which decides on whether the name of a deity can be trademarked. But this is not true. The actual case is R.S. Praveen Raj v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, where the order was given by the Geographical Indications Registry in 2012. It is about the GI of “Tirupathi Laddu”, which does not have anything to do with trademark law, and no deity name was registered here either.
That is why this analysis has two parts. First, it discusses the actual case of GI; then it talks about the provisions of trademark law about deity names, citing many subsequent court decisions in this respect. The main idea is very simple: while religion itself cannot become a reason not to protect a product or name under the intellectual property laws, it also cannot become a reason to make it one’s property simply because of that. The Tirupathi Laddu received GI status for its geographical and manufacturing characteristics, but not because it was considered as prasadam. Moreover, no court allowed anyone to own a god’s name completely.
Background and Facts of the Case
The Venkateswara temple in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh is governed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). On March 31, 2008, TTD registered “Tirupathi Laddu” as a Geographical Indication of Class 30 food products. It was stated in the application that the laddu is made in a specific recipe and method at the temple, known as the Potu, and its high respectability stems from being created in that area of the world. The GI Registry approved the application, and “Tirupathi Laddu” was registered as GI No. 121 in September 2009. Afterward, R.S. Praveen Raj objected to the registration. He was the former Examiner of Patents and Designs and a scientist. The main issue he was worried about was TTD’s exclusive production of the laddu, which made the registration process seem less important for protecting a community of producers and more like granting monopolies to one organization. Additionally, he voiced his concerns about the ethical implications of marketing a religious sacrifice, fearing it could lead to legal action against non-Hindu merchants who were selling identical sweet treats.
Procedural history
Even before approaching the GI Registry, Praveen Raj had written to the Supreme Court about the grant and a public interest writ petition on the same issue was filed in the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed this petition on 8 June 2010 stating that he had an appropriate remedy under Section 27 of the GI Act which he ought to pursue instead of a writ. So he had filed a correction application before the GI Registry in Chennai in October 2010.
It took almost two years to get the case decided. Praveen Raj did not turn up to the hearing scheduled for 16 July 2012. He wrote to the Registrar explaining that he had practical difficulties in attending and asking that the case be decided on the basis of his previous written submissions alone and without the introduction of new evidence. The Assistant Registrar, Chinnaraja G. Naidu, on 30 July 2012, dismissed the application and awarded Rs. 10,000 as costs to Praveen Raj.
Concerns Raised Before this Authority
• Whether Praveen Raj had the locus standi to file the rectification application under Section 27 of the GI Act and whether he can be termed as a “aggrieved person”?
• Can the GI grant violate Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
• Whether the registration was in conformity with the provisions of Sections 2(1)(f), 9(a), 9(d) and 11(1) of the GI Act?
• Did Praveen Raj succeed in proving his assertions?
Arguments on Behalf of R.S. Praveen Raj
Single-producer bias. The goal behind the geographical indication (GI) is to protect the interest of a group of producers connected to a certain geographical region rather than just one. Praveen Raj claimed that, since the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) was practically the only producer of the laddu in question, the protection served as a monopoly to one person rather than a geographical indication as per Section 11(1) of the GI Act, 1999.
Not goods but a religious offering. Praveen Raj claimed that the offering to deity could not be considered “goods” as per Section 2(1)(f) of the GI Act, 1999, as it was religious and not a business product.
Violating religious sentiment. According to Section 9(d) of Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, a GI would not qualify if it could possibly hurt religious sentiments. In this case, Praveen Raj believed that making something that was meant to be holy into intellectual property was hurting religious sentiments, potentially opening up the way for infringement against sweet sellers who were not Hindus and, therefore, provoking communal tension.
Constitutional objections. Finally, he stated that the award violated Article 25 that guaranteed freedom of religion and Article 26 that protected the right of managing affairs by a religious denomination as the offering was being treated as a private property of TTD.
Arguments for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)
No locus standi. First of all, the primary argument presented by TTD is quite simple – Praveen Raj is a resident of Kerala, he neither produces nor sells the laddu, and thus cannot prove his personal and commercial losses due to the registration. Thus, he fails to be an aggrieved party under Section 27 of the Act and is thus ineligible to file the case.
There are producers. Addressing the argument of lack of producer status of Praveen Raj, TTD stated that laddus are actually manufactured by the personnel working in the kitchens using the method called Potu. Therefore, the actual producers do participate in the process, and even if TTD has registered the product, it represents the interests of producers. Thus, according to TTD, the section 11(1) does not require the applicant to be a big trade organization, but simply represents the interests of producers.
Food is food. In order to counter the argument of improper registration of a foodstuff, TTD argued that the section 2(1)(f) categorizes the goods in such a way that foodstuffs cannot be excluded from this definition, including religious foodstuff. Thus, the laddu should be registered regardless of its intended purpose.
GI prevents deception. In order to counter the argument of confusion and deception, TTD argued that without registering the GI, it would have been possible for any individual to market a common sweet as Tirupathi Laddu and potentially deceive people. Thus, the registration prevents individuals from being deceived. In addition, TTD argued that knowing the origin of the food is irrelevant to individual’s freedom of religion.
Statutory Provisions Relevant to the Case
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
– Section 2(1)(e): scope of geographical indications defined under this section.
– Section 2(1)(f): “goods” defined, including those for consumption.
– Section 2(1)(k): qualifications of a “producer” as per section.
– Section 9(a): refusal of registration if registration may cause confusion among public.
– Section 9(d): refusal of registration of matters offending religious sentiments.
– Section 11(1): scope of applications eligible for geographical indication.
– Section 27: right to aggrieved party to remove a geographical indication.
Trade Marks Act, 1999
– Sections 9(1)(a) & 9(1)(c): refusal of registration for lack of distinctiveness or being common in trade.
– Section 9(2)(b): marks offending religious sentiments refused.
– Section 29: provision for issues of infringement.
Precedents and Judicial Authorities
In the above case, the applicant was TTD which had filed its application in 2008, got registered in 2009 and then was opposed in 2010 on the grounds mentioned above. The Registry dismissed the opposition in 2012 primarily on the ground of Praveen Raj’s lack of standing, apart from rejection of his other objections. The details of the case are mentioned above.
The order above relates to a ring with religious significance from northern Kerala. The Registry ruled that even if something has religious meaning, this will not prevent GI registration if all the criteria are fulfilled. It has been cited in the above case. It must be stated that in 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board(IPAB) cancelled the registration of Payyannur for a completely different reason, viz. the society did not represent artisans manufacturing the ring. Still, the principle that religious meaning does not pose an obstacle to GI registration will remain valid despite this cancellation.
In the above case, the Supreme Court has rejected an application by a trader to trademark “RAMAYAN” together with a crown symbol for incense sticks. This was not because religious names could not be trademarked in principle but rather because there were at least twenty other traders who were already using “Ramayan” for similar goods. At that, the Supreme Court warned that its previous decision should not be taken as a general ban on trademarking of religious names.
The Delhi High Court resolved the dispute between two dairy companies which used the name “KRISHNA.” According to the Court, the name was close to being descriptive because Krishna was commonly associated with milk and butter. Since the plaintiff was unable to show a direct link between his goods and “Krishna,” the defendant could use it but under condition that they put “Parul’s” and “Lord” in equal visibility.
The present matter dealt with two manufacturers of incenses who used images of Lord Shiva on the labels of their goods: one with the whole figure of Shiva and the other with his bust in a circle. The designs of these trademarks have been found to be distinctive enough. Citing a previous decision of the Bombay High Court, it has been said that no trader could claim monopoly of the name and image of a Hindu deity. The legal protection is granted only to the specific design.
Analysis of the GI Protection of “Tirupathi Laddu”
Geographical Indications Act Assessment of Protection Granted to the “Tirupathi Laddu”
When analyzing the applicability of Section 2(1)(e) to the case of Tirupathi Laddu, it can be concluded that there is a high level of congruity between the product and Section 2(1)(e). The manufacturing process, ingredients used in making of the laddu, as well as high reputation of the product itself are all closely linked with Tirumala. In addition, food can be considered as goods according to Section 2(1)(f). Therefore, the religious nature of the product cannot serve as an exception in this case. Hence, this can be considered as the core of the argument discussed earlier. The classification of the product as prasadam should not prevent it from being subject to IP protection. the emphasis of the Act lies on origin and reputation of the product; the latter aspect applies to Tirupathi Laddu owing to its unique features.
A more complicated matter relates to Section 11(1). According to this Section, an applicant should be an association of producers or a representative body. In this case, TTD is not a regular trade association. However, the Registry acknowledges the fact that the laddus are made by personnel of TTD, thus, there are real producers behind the product regardless of the fact that TTD is the organization in whose name the laddus have been registered. This is a very important aspect as it allows linking the GI with tangible commercial reality, with real people producing the product instead of the religious authority over the temple of TTD.
Can a Deity’s Name Be Registered as a Trademark?
In no sense is the matter determined by blanket rejection or acceptance of the concept. The three trademark case law decisions above support an argument based on three different analyses. Lal Babu Priyadarshi argues that if the name is already being extensively used by many traders, it cannot be registered, regardless of the religious nature. Bhole Baba argues that the name of a deity that bears a definite association with the product, say, Krishna with milk, needs a great deal of proof to show that people connect the name with a certain trader before the monopoly right can be granted. Mysore Sangam provides yet another perspective: when the same deity image is used by two different companies, neither owns the image but only its unique logo.
None of these authorities says that a deity’s name cannot be protected as a trademark. Nor does anyone suggest that simply because it is a deity name, a company has an absolute right to it. In essence, the test they raise resembles that under Section 8 of the Geographical Indications Act except that it is asked within the context of trademarks: is there any real link between the trademark and goods of a particular trader, or does the trader want to lay claim to something in the public domain? When it was perceived that the latter was the case, all three courts rejected the claim.
Geographical Indications vs. Trademark Law
There is a clear difference between the two laws, an important difference in the context of this topic. While a Geographical Indication (GI) checks if the product really relates to that specific place, therefore protecting that relationship for the benefit of producers and consumers, not only of the registrant. On the other hand, a trademark checks if the sign in question lets the consumers know the source of the products they buy. Even though TTD had the issue of selling fake Tirupathi Laddu, both of these laws would be available, but the results would be different.
If TTD had registered “TIRUPATHI LADDU” or even just “TIRUPATHI” trademark for confectionery products, it would have faced the same problems as in the case of Lal Babu Priyadarshi. The designation had been used by many local sweet sellers in Tirumala long before applying for trademark. As mentioned by Amritpal Singh, the name that had been widely used in the industry cannot be all of a sudden registered as a trademark even if it belongs to the biggest or most recognizable company using it. Furthermore, TTD would face the same problem as Bhole Baba. The name “Tirupathi” itself would be connected to the temple and the region, similarly to how “Krishna” is connected to the milk. In that case, the court would consider it a descriptive designation and require a significant amount of proof of a specific relation to TTD’s activity, which would be difficult to provide after centuries of religious and geographical usage.
On the contrary, a GI, which does not have such problems, does not depend on whether the designation is exclusive or distinctive. Instead, it focuses on whether the product’s reputation or quality has actually originated from that location, which clearly is the case with Tirupathi Laddu as it is made at Potu. It is that basic requirement that helps to understand why a GI was the better choice here, while trademark was not. The difference is not that the GI law is softer towards the religion, but that it actually addresses a different issue.
Ratio Decidendi
This is an order from the Registry, not a court ruling, so the term “ratio decidendi” is used in a broader sense here. The most specific reason for the decision is procedural. Praveen Raj failed to show that he was an aggrieved party with standing under Section 27, and he neither appeared nor provided any evidence during the hearing. This alone was enough to dismiss the case.
Additionally, the Registry did consider the merits, and its reasoning can be summarized as follows: having one institution oversee production does not inherently invalidate a Geographical Indication (GI), provided there are genuine producers behind the products and that the goods meet the necessary criteria for origin, quality, and reputation. The existence of a single registered owner does not automatically disqualify a GI.
Obiter Dicta and Supplementary Comments
Since no one offered counterarguments, the Registry’s comments on religious sentiment, consumer protection, and constitutional matters should be viewed as supporting observations for the outcome, not as fully analyzed conclusions. These issues were never disputed during the proceedings, so they should not carry the same weight as a ruling based on an actual controversy.
Critical Analysis
The main issue with this order is about procedure than substance. A complicated question came up about whether one institution could meet the producer‑representation requirement in Section 11(1) but it was settled without any opposing views being offered. Because Praveen Raj was not present the Registrys reasoning on this point was not properly contested. Although this does not automatically make the order wrong it does suggest that the authority of the order is weaker than it would be if both sides had taken part and discussed the matter.
On the producer side I think the reasoning deserves scrutiny than it got. Reading TTDs kitchen staff as the “producers” under Section 11(1) is a reading of the Act since the section does not say the applicant must be a multi‑member group; it only calls for representation of producers. However taken to an extreme this reading could let any large organization with employees making a product get a GI by calling its workers producers, which goes against the community‑oriented basis of GI law. TTD might say the other view is less appealing arguing that refusing GI protection to a well‑run, large‑scale producer just because it is not a loose group of small traders would lead to a strange result and nothing in Section 11(1) requires multiple owners over multiple workers. Both sides have points, which is exactly why this issue needed a full debate that never happened.
A legitimate question is whether Geographical Indication (GI) was the tool or not. If TTDs main worry was laddus being sold under its name that is basically about passing off and misleading consumers, which trademark law and passing off are meant to handle. GI protection gives a result by stopping unauthorized use of the name but it works through a different legal route centered on geographic origin rather than distinctiveness. Getting the result does not necessarily mean the correct legal principle was used and it is wise to be a bit cautious about viewing this order as proof that GI was clearly the right choice just because TTD got what it wanted.
Still the GI framework has value in this case. The laddus reputation is tied to a place, a set process and a documented method, which is more than many contested GI applications can show. So on the whole I think the outcome is defensible even though the reasoning on the producer point would be stronger, after a hearing.
Decision and Importance
The GI Registry rejected the rectification request, on 30 July 2012. It directed Praveen Raj to pay Rs. 10,000 As costs. The GI No. 121 Which is linked to “Tirupathi Laddu,” remains on the register.
The practical and legal importance of this order lies in its scope. It does not give TTD ownership over the name Lord Venkateswara. Instead it only protects a food product that is connected to a particular place. That is all. The key takeaway is the value of a Registry order. Even though the order resolved the registration dispute it did not settle the legal question. That is because there was no opposition, to the application. For Geographical Indication applications, especially those filed by religious groups that also act as the sole producers this case provides a helpful precedent.. It is not a final or binding decision.
Conclusion
The TTD case involved a geographical indication GI issue of a trademark matter and moved forward without major controversy. However when compared to trademark cases it highlights one idea instead of two different results. The religious value of a product does not stop intellectual property IP protection from happening. The Tirupathi Laddu got its GI status because of a connection to a particular place and way of making it not just because it is prasadam the religious part has no effect on this decision. Also the religious value does not give anyone the right to own something exclusively. The GI decision does not make TTD the owner of Lord Venkateswaras name and cases involving Lal Babu Priyadarshi Bhole Baba and Mysore Sangam show that a deitys name or picture cannot be owned by one person just because that person is well known sincere or the first to start a business about it.
The questions, from both GI and trademark points of view finally point to the main problem even if they are worded differently Both need a clear real link to a place or a seller and both say that protecting religious identity by itself is not allowed. Intellectual property law can protect a product or mark that’s really special or truly connected to a certain place.. It cannot make a god a scripture or a religious offering into something that belongs to one person just because a business has grown around it.
Also Read: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Injunction: ‘Section 34’ Protects Prior Users
References
- Geographical Indication : ” Tirupati Laddu ” valid – IIPTA
- The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 – WIPO
- Lal+Babu+Priyadarshi+V | Indian Case Law – CaseMine
- Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.
- M/S.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works vs M/S.Ganga Products on 12 .
- Details | Geographical Indications – Intellectual Property India
