M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v. The Registrar Of Trademarks

Every founder knows the frustration of building a brand, only to hit a bureaucratic wall when trying to protect it. Trademark registration is supposed to be the shield that guards your hard-earned reputation, but what happens when the very evidence proving your brand's existence is held against you? The Madras High Court recently tackled this exact paradox in a case that redefines how digital proof should be treated in intellectual property filings.

M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP, a limited liability partnership behind the CHU CHU TV brand, sought to register its device mark with the Registrar of Trademarks. The mark in question was a visual device mark associated with their brand identity. However, the Registrar rejected the application, raising two specific objections that stood in the way of registration. The first ground was the applicant's alleged failure to disclose turnover details. The second, and arguably more consequential, was the Registrar's insistence that the applicant furnish a Section 65B certificate to authenticate online content submitted as evidence of the mark's use and recognition.

The Registrar of Trademarks stood firm on procedural grounds, arguing that without a Section 65B certificate—a legal requirement under Indian evidence law for proving electronic records—the online articles submitted by Chu Chu TV Studios could not be considered authentic proof. The authorities essentially demanded a digital fingerprint for content that the applicant did not create or control. On the other side, Chu Chu TV Studios LLP pushed back, contending that the evidence they submitted came from third-party online sources—publicly available articles and content they neither possessed in original electronic form nor had the technical authority to certify. They argued that imposing such a requirement on applicants relying on public domain material was untenable and unfair.

The Madras High Court sided with Chu Chu TV Studios LLP, allowing their appeal and overturning the Registrar's refusal. The court found both grounds cited by the Registrar to be untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate. The court reasoned that such a requirement places an impossible burden on applicants who rely on publicly available digital content they do not own or control. By clearing this hurdle, the court paved the way for the CHU CHU TV device mark to proceed toward acceptance on the trademark register.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a clear and practical lesson: when building your evidence of use through public domain content—such as news articles, blog mentions, or third-party coverage—you are not obligated to produce a Section 65B certificate if you do not possess or control the original electronic record. The trademark authority retains the ability to independently verify the genuineness of such evidence. So the next time you compile your trademark application, don't let a procedural technicality derail your brand protection strategy. Document your brand's public presence through credible third-party sources, and trust that the law will recognize your right to use that evidence without forcing you to certify what you never owned.