Can a religious trust own exclusive trademark rights over the image or name of a god — and stop everyone else from using it? Indian law pushes hard against the idea, on several fronts.
The controversy: Attukal Devi
In 2009, the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust obtained trademark protection for an image of the deity and the title “Sabarimala of Women” (in Class 42). The Kerala High Court took up a suo motu matter on a petition by Mr. Praveen Raj challenging these registrations — crystallising a question with wide implications: can the sacred be privately owned as a mark?
Why such marks sit uneasily with the law
Distinctiveness (Section 2(1)(zb)). A trademark must distinguish one person’s goods/services from another’s. Religious practice cannot be monopolised — devotees hold an equal stake in temple services, so a deity image struggles to function as a single-source identifier.
Public domain. In Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries v. Parul Food Specialities, the Delhi High Court held that deity names in the public domain cannot be monopolised. Registering a commonly worshipped deity’s image arguably appropriates a “commons” for private commercial use.
Constitutional freedom (Article 25). The Constitution guarantees the free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Exclusive trademark rights that prevent devotees from using a deity’s image in worship would cut against this protection. (The Supreme Court in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay treated religious performances as protected practice.)
Religious susceptibilities (Section 9(2)(b)). The Trade Marks Act bars marks likely to hurt religious sensibilities. Fencing off sacred imagery for profit risks exactly that — and a dangerous precedent for other symbols.
The wider point
Deity images are best understood as public-domain cultural property, with a trust acting as custodian, not owner. Granting private monopoly invites a cascade of claims over other religious symbols and even national emblems — and sits oddly with the tax-exempt, charitable character of the institutions involved.
Practical takeaways
- Sacred and public-domain symbols are weak, contentious trademark subjects — expect distinctiveness and Section 9(2)(b) hurdles.
- Custodianship is not ownership. Managing a temple’s affairs does not translate into a monopoly over the deity’s image.
- Brand around the institution, not the divine — a temple’s own name/logo is far more defensible than the god itself.
Frequently asked questions
Can a deity’s image be trademarked in India? It is highly contentious. Distinctiveness, public-domain principles, Article 25 and the Section 9(2)(b) bar on hurting religious sensibilities all cut against it.
What is the Attukal Devi case about? A temple trust’s trademark over a deity image and a title, challenged before the Kerala High Court as an improper monopoly over the sacred.
Does Section 9(2)(b) matter here? Yes — it requires refusal of marks likely to hurt religious susceptibilities, which weighs against registering sacred imagery for commercial monopoly.
Can deity names be monopolised? Public-domain deity names generally cannot, following Bhole Baba.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Constitution of India — Article 25