Skip to main content

DELHI HIGH COURT SAYS BASEBALL NOT POPULAR AS CRICKET IN INDIA; ALLOWS USE OF BLUE JAY AS APPAREL BRAND

INTRODUCTION

Trademark dispute decided in January 2026 between an Indian apparel firm using the mark BLUE-JAY for readymade garments in Class 25) and Major League Baseball Properties Inc. (MLB), which owns the famous BLUE JAYS / TORONTO BLUE JAYS marks associated with the Canadian baseball team in the MLB league.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND 

The Indian appellants applied for and eventually got registration of the word mark BLUE-JAY in 1998 registered in 2017 after opposition issues.

MLB claimed trans-border reputation and goodwill of their BLUE JAYS mark and in use since 1976 for baseball-related merchandise, including apparel.

In 2023, MLB filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade -Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the Indian BLUE-JAY mark.

MLB argued bad faith adoption by the Indian party and that their global fame should prevent similar marks in India.



OBSERVATIONS

Single Judge Decision (July 1, 2025)

A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed MLB's petition and ordered the removal of the BLUE-JAY mark from the Register.

The Single Judge held that:

The Indian mark was adopted in bad faith to ride on MLB's global reputation.

There was sufficient evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India (e.g., website accessibility, broadcasting of MLB games since the late 1990s, etc.).

The mark deserved cancellation under Section 11 (passing off / deceptive similarity grounds).

Division Bench Decision (January 5, 2026) – Appeal Allowed

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order in the appeal and restored the Indian BLUE-JAY trademark registration.

Key reasons given by the Division Bench:

Territoriality principle in trademark law: Reputation and goodwill are territorial. Mere global/international fame is not enough; positive proof of spillover reputation and goodwill in India is required, especially around the relevant date.

MLB failed to prove sufficient reputation or use of BLUE JAYS in India in 1998.

Baseball's lack of popularity in India was a crucial factor. The Court explicitly observed that baseball is not cricket and is not a popular or widely followed sport in India (unlike cricket, which dominates). Therefore, one cannot presume that the fame of a Canadian baseball team (Toronto Blue Jays) and its marks automatically percolated to Indian consumers in the 1990s or even later.

Mere website accessibility or global broadcasting does not automatically create trans-border reputation in India without evidence of actual consumer recognition or substantial spillover.

No sufficient material was shown to prove bad faith adoption by the Indian apparel company.

The Division Bench emphasized that in a cricket-loving country like India, fame in baseball-playing nations (like the US/Canada) does not automatically translate into enforceable trademark rights here unless local goodwill is established.

This ruling reinforces the territorial nature of trademark protection in India and serves as an important precedent that global sports giants must prove actual Indian market reputation — especially for niche sports — before they can cancel local registrations.

The judgment has been widely discussed in legal circles for its practical and culturally grounded approach.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

 Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi.   ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least.   DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...
1 comment
Read more

BENGALURU CONSUMER COURT IMPOSES PENALTY ON FLIPKART

RECENTLY BENGALURU DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DIRECTED ONLINE MERCHANT FLIPKART TO REFUND AN ANOUNT OF RS. 13,999/- ALONGWITH COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,000/- TO A 80-YEAR OLD FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY. BRIEF FACTS An 80 -Year Old Consumer ordered a treadmill on the online site of Opposite Party Flipkart. In compliance the treadmill was delivered to the consumer. At the time of installation of the product, it was revealed by the technician that the treadmill is faulty. On coming to know that the consumer returned the product to Flipkart and sought replacement. Initially Flipkart failed to replace the product but in some time, the replaced product was delivered to consumer, however, despite requests they failed to send the technician. When consumer tried to fix the same on its own, it was found that the product was of some other company. In other words, it was not the same product which has been initially ordered by the consumer. With no resolution, the consumer was left with no other option bu...
Post a Comment
Read more

KERALA HIGH COURT BARS ENTRY OF 10 YEAR GIRL FROM ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE  226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...
Post a Comment
Read more