A week after the Trade Marks Registry accepted former cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s request to trademark the moniker “Captain Cool”, IP firm KAnalysis formally opposed the application on behalf of its client Ashutosh Choudhary, also a lawyer.
Dhoni received the nickname “Captain Cool” early in his cricketing career. The registry accepted the trademark registration for the term (application No. 5966261) in class 41, covering services such as sports training, coaching and related facilities. But it kept the door open for any future objections for a period of 120 days post acceptance.
“Trademarks are about distinctiveness and source identification – not personal acclaim,” said Nilanshu Shekhar, founding partner at KAnalysis.
“KAnalysis strongly believes that granting exclusive rights over a commonly used and generic term, merely on the basis of celebrity status, sets a dangerous precedent for 含羞草社区 IP ecosystem,” said Shekhar who is also the lead attorney on the matter. Dhoni was represented by advocate Mansi Aggarwal and senior advocate Rajesh Kumar from Vidhi Samhita Advocates.
Observing Aggarwal’s application, the registry noted, “The applicant’s identity and the reputation of the moniker predate the cited mark and are supported by widespread public use, media coverage, and consumer recognition.
“In view of the above, it is considered that the use of the mark ‘CAPTAIN COOL’ by the applicant is not likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public, as the mark is distinctly associated with the applicant’s persona in the field of class 41 services.”
One of the primary objections raised by KAnalysis is that the application, originally filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, was later amended to claimed use since 2008. However, no supporting evidence – such as affidavits, advertisements, invoices or user data – was provided to substantiate this claim.
KAnalysis also argues that the term “Captain Cool” is generic and lacks distinctiveness. It is widely recognised as a laudatory and descriptive phrase in the cricketing world, with references predating Dhoni’s association, including usage in connection with cricketers such as Sri Lanka’s Arjuna Ranatunga.
Furthermore, KAnalysis in its opposition has pointed out procedural irregularities in the registry’s handling of the application. It highlighted the mark was advertised despite an unresolved citation against an earlier registered trademark and without the issuance of mandatory rectification notices.
The firm emphasised that celebrity status alone could not substitute the legal requirements for trademark protection, which included genuine use, distinctiveness and clear public association with specific goods or services.
