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

Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance. Observations of the Court   Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory   Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document.      - These grounds include matters like:       ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR, KERALA HELD AIR ASIA LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Introduction    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur, Kerala (India), held AirAsia India Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Facts and Background In this matter, a passenger's flight was cancelled by the airline for operational reasons. Under applicable rules (including those from India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation or DGCA, and the Consumer Protection Act), passengers are typically entitled to a full refund in such cases, and many airlines (including low-cost carriers like AirAsia) are expected to process automatic refunds promptly without requiring manual claims in straightforward cancellations. However, AirAsia failed to issue an automatic refund for the ticket amount (which was ₹2,983). The passenger made repeated attempts to obtain the refund but faced ongoing issues and harassment, ultimately having to approach the consumer forum to recover even this small sum. This caused financial loss, inconvenience, a...
Post a Comment
Read more