Operation Sindoor was a swift and precise Indian military operation launched in May 2025 in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. It targeted and destroyed multiple terror camps and enemy posts in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir using advanced indigenous weaponry and strategic planning. However, within days, the euphoria took a commercial turn, and multiple entities rushed to file trademark applications for the term “Operation Sindoor” under Class 41, which covers education, entertainment, and cultural services. This unexpected move sparked debates around the legal permissibility and ethical implications of commercialising national military operations. Can, and should, a public rescue mission be owned as a private trademark? This blog delves into the legal frameworks, ethical boundaries, and international comparisons to examine whether such actions uphold the spirit of intellectual property law or merely exploit national emotion for commercial gain.
What is a Trademark & What Does Class 41 Mean?
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or sign that identifies a business’s goods or services and protects them legally from misuse. In India, Class 41 covers services like education, entertainment, and cultural activities. Filing “Operation Sindoor” as a trademark in this class means claiming exclusive rights to use it for films, shows, or events. Multiple applications came in quickly, from Reliance, a retired IAF officer, and others. While legally allowed, this raises ethical questions: should a national military operation’s name be privately owned, even for entertainment? The challenge is balancing IP rights with public and patriotic interests.
Military Operations and IP Law in India
India’s Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly prohibit trademarking names of military operations. However, Section 9(2)(b)[1] bars registration of marks that are contrary to public morality or likely to offend the sentiments of any class of citizens, making it possible to argue that using names like Operation Sindoor for commercial purposes trivializes national sacrifice. Additionally, Section 13[2] prohibits trademarking protected emblems (like the national flag or military insignia), but does not extend protection to operation names, creating a grey area.
The Emblems and Names Act[3], meant to protect names and symbols of national importance, is similarly silent on military operations, though its scope could be expanded. The government can intervene by filing an opposition under Section 21[4] of the Trade Marks Act during examination, or apply for rectification under Section 57[5] post-registration.
Globally, countries like the U.S., the UK, and Australia have stronger safeguards. For instance, in the U.S., military insignias and operation names are explicitly protected from unauthorized commercial use, reinforcing respect for national defence institutions, an approach India may need to adopt.
Opportunism vs. Ownership
Military operations like Operation Meghdoot, Operation Vijay, or even rescue efforts like Operation Ganga are executed in the public interest by state forces and funded by taxpayers. These are not corporate campaigns, they are matters of national significance. Attempting to privatize such terms through trademark registration blurs the line between commemoration and commercialization.
When individuals or companies trademark such names, they are effectively profiting from national service, leveraging patriotism as a marketing tool. This not only feels ethically hollow but also risks misleading the public. Consumers may wrongly believe that a product or service has official sanction from the armed forces or the government, especially when the name evokes national pride or emotional memory.
In a digital age already rife with misinformation and manufactured narratives, allowing the exclusive commercial use of such terms can distort public perception and historical accuracy. The sanctity of military operations, rooted in sacrifice, loss, and duty, must not be diluted for branding gains. Ethical boundaries in IP law are often shaped by public conscience. Here, the collective conscience demands that names of military operations remain part of our shared heritage, not private assets.
Bollywood, Military Stories, and Trademarks: Navigating the Line
Indian cinema has long drawn inspiration from real military and defence events, crafting powerful narratives without trademarking the actual operation names. Films like Uri: The Surgical Strike (depicting the 2016 surgical strike), Shershaah (based on the heroic life of Captain Vikram Batra during the Kargil War), and Raazi (a spy drama set against the backdrop of the 1971 Indo-Pak war), LOC Kargil, andThe Ghazi Attack have all achieved tremendous commercial success and critical acclaim.
These movies rely on the story, characters, and historical context rather than staking exclusive claims over operation names. By focusing on creative expression and dramatic storytelling, filmmakers navigate around intellectual property constraints, since historical facts and events are not protected under trademark law. This approach respects the collective ownership of national history while allowing businesses to capitalize on public interest through original content.
Interestingly, these films have not trademarked the operation names themselves. Instead, filmmakers focus on telling the story, building characters, and crafting a narrative around the event without owning the specific operation name. For example, “Uri” used the actual name of the surgical strike but avoided trademarking it, relying on copyright protection for the screenplay, dialogues, and the film’s creative expression.
This distinction is critical because trademarking an operation name risks monopolizing a factual historical event, which belongs to the public domain. The story of the operation, its drama and details, are protected as creative expressions, but the operation name remains free for use by others in different contexts. Thus, filmmakers and content creators can celebrate and depict national military events without seeking exclusive rights over the operation names, aligning with both legal principles and ethical considerations. This approach preserves the collective ownership of national pride while rewarding artistic creativity.
Conclusion
Operation Sindoor stands as a symbol of India’s collective national pride and courage, not as a commodity for private ownership. While trademark laws are designed to protect creativity and innovation, they must not become tools for opportunistic claims over culturally and emotionally significant terms. The true spirit of intellectual property lies in rewarding originality, not capitalizing on moments of national sacrifice or unity. As this trademark race unfolds, we must ask ourselves: Should anyone be allowed to claim ownership over what belongs to an entire nation? Protecting national symbols demands legal safeguards grounded in respect and ethical responsibility.
[1] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 9(2)(b), No. 47. Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India).
[2] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 13, No. 47. Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India).
[3] Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
[4] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 21, No. 47. Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India).
[5] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 57, No. 47. Acts of Parliament, 1950 (India).
Leave a Reply