Baseball is not cricket, not popular in India: Delhi High Court in Toronto Blue Jays trademark case

Holding that baseball is not a widely followed sport in India, the Delhi High Court recently set aside an order that cancelled an Indian apparel brand’s ‘BLUE-JAY’ trademark [Sumit Vijay v. Major League Baseball Properties]..A Division Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla restored the appellant's ‘BLUE-JAY’ mark in Class 25 (clothing). The Court held that the global fame of the Toronto Blue Jays could not be presumed to translate into consumer recognition in India, particularly during the 1990s."Trans border reputation in India has to be positively proved. This is especially shown in the case of marks which may be associated with activities which are not popular or well known in India...Baseball, in India, is not cricket.".The appellant, owner of the BLUE JAY apparel brand, had filed for registration on August 19, 1998 and the mark eventually proceeded to registration on June 8, 2017.Major League Baseball (MLB) challenged the mark, asserting that it was the proprietor of the BLUE JAYS and TORONTO BLUE JAYS marks used by its Canadian baseball club established in 1976. MLB argued that these marks had achieved worldwide fame and that their reputation had percolated into India through broadcasts, internet accessibility and international periodicals.Records indicated that MLB had previously filed trademark applications for "TORONTO BLUE JAYS" in India in 1983 and 1988. However, these applications were filed on a "proposed to be used" basis and were abandoned in 1990 and 1995, respectively - years before the appellants applied for their mark.In 2023, MLB filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act to strike the "BLUE-JAY" mark from the register. A single-judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the petition in 2025, concluding that the Indian firm had adopted the mark in "bad faith" to capitalise on MLB’s global reputation..In appeal, the Division Bench ruled that the respondent's "BLUE JAYS" mark did not qualify as an "earlier trade mark" because there was no valid registration or pending application in India at the time of the appellants' 1998 filing. The Court further held that MLB failed to prove the mark was "well-known" in India by that date, noting that baseball is not a popular sport in the country.Regarding the evidence of reputation, the Court stated that mere accessibility of websites or the presence of a mark in international magazines does not suffice."Mere availability of products bearing a mark for sale on an e-commerce website, or on the website of the owner of the mark, would not, however, suffice as proof of trans-border goodwill or reputation.".The Court also dismissed the allegation of "bad faith" trademark adoption, noting that MLB had abandoned its own marks years earlier..On reputation, the Court said, "Goodwill and reputation, it has to be remembered, is a two-way street. One cannot claim to have goodwill and reputation, unless others feel the same. Thumping one’s own chest, and claiming to be famous, is mere false hope, and nothing more. Goodwill and reputation are positive attributes, relative to others. The purpose of requiring establishment of goodwill and reputation, in passing off actions, has to be remembered.".Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed the July 1, 2025 order directing cancellation of the ‘BLUE-JAY’ mark and ordered that the trademark be restored to the Register..The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates Chander M Lall and Sai Deepak with Advocates Rupin Bahl, Karan Bajaj, Aastha Arora, Avinash and Annanya Mehan..Major League Baseball Properties Inc were represented by Advocates Urfi Roomi, Janaki Arun, Jaskaran Singh and Angela Arora..The Trademarks Registry was represented by Advocates Nidhi Raman, Akash Mishra, Arnav Mittal and Mayank Sansanwal..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.