Follow us @thelegalcatalsyt_
A Delhi-based lawyer has formally opposed former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s attempt to trademark the popular phrase “Captain Cool”, arguing that the term is generic, descriptive, and rooted in public sporting culture rather than in any distinct commercial identity.
The opposition, filed by Ashutosh Choudhary through KAnalysis Attorneys at Law, asserts that Dhoni’s celebrity alone is not a valid basis for monopolising a term widely used across the sporting world. The mark, the filing claims, lacks inherent distinctiveness and fails to meet the requirements laid out under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Dhoni’s application, which falls under Class 41 (covering education, entertainment, sports coaching and related services), was recently published in the Trade Marks Journal following initial acceptance by the Trade Marks Registry. Originally submitted on a “proposed to be used” basis, the application was later amended to claim prior use since 2008—an amendment the opponent argues was made without evidence or affidavit, and only after repeated examination reports and hearings.
“This is a deliberate and mala fide attempt to circumvent objections raised during multiple hearings,” the opposition notice stated.
Connect with us @LinkedIn
Choudhary contends that the phrase “Captain Cool” has been historically applied to several international sportspersons—including Sri Lanka’s Arjuna Ranatunga—and is therefore a laudatory expression lacking any singular source-identifying function.
“The term ‘Captain Cool’ is a generic, laudatory expression that has been used for multiple sportspersons. It cannot be monopolised by any individual, regardless of their fame or public persona,” the filing argues.
The opposition also challenges the conduct of the Trade Marks Registry, pointing out procedural irregularities in accepting the application without proper scrutiny or resolution of pending rectification proceedings against a conflicting earlier trademark. The opponent claims this amounts to preferential treatment influenced by Dhoni’s fame.
Further, the filing argues that Dhoni’s claim of acquired distinctiveness lacks support, as no concrete evidence has been provided to show consistent or exclusive commercial use, or public recognition of the mark in connection with sports-related services.
“Persona is not a source of legal right unless supported by actual commercial use and compliance with statutory criteria. Popularity alone does not satisfy the legal threshold,” it stated.
The filing also includes media references to show that the term “Captain Cool” had been widely used in public discourse long before it became associated with Dhoni. It likens the phrase to other non-proprietary cricket epithets like “The Wall” or “God of Cricket”, arguing that such expressions are descriptive and belong to the public domain.
“Accordingly, no proprietary rights or exclusivity can be claimed over such a generic phrase, and any attempt to do so is legally unsustainable and contrary to the basic principles of trademark law.”
The matter will now proceed under opposition proceedings as per Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the outcome will depend on whether the Registry finds sufficient grounds to deny registration.
Also Read
Vice-President Dhankhar Criticises CJI’s Role in CBI Director Appointment
