When the film The Kerala Story – 2 sparked a legal and political firestorm, I was, like most people, following the debates around free speech and state’s reputation. But somewhere along the way, a different question came to my mind: Can the name of an Indian state be registered as a trademark and if so, by whom, for what purpose, and in what manner? The answer, as Indian trademark law makes plain, is far more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

The Kerala Story

The 2023 film The Kerala Story, directed by Sudipto Sen and produced by Vipul Shah under Sunshine Pictures, claimed to dramatise the conversion and radicalisation of Hindu women from Kerala into ISIS operatives. The Government of Kerala moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the film’s release, arguing, among other grounds, that using the State’s name in the title of a commercially released film that was factually questionable and culturally defamatory caused direct harm to the State’s reputation, tourism, economy, and the dignity of its citizens. While the Supreme Court declined to impose a blanket ban (upholding the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution), it directed that a prominent disclaimer be added to clarify the film’s contested factual basis. The controversy resurfaced in 2026 when a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowed the release of The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond, overturning a prior stay, subject to CBFC certification that the controversial teaser content was not part of the film.

The actual litigation around The Kerala Story does not deal with trademark law. The Government of Kerala moved the Supreme Court on grounds of free speech and reputational harm. When the sequel, “The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond”, came up before the Kerala High Court in 2026, it was again a matter of constitutional rights and CBFC certification, not intellectual property. No IP claim was ever argued.

But the question stayed with me. So I decided to think it through as a hypothetical scenario, what would trademark law actually say if someone had tried to claim exclusive rights over the name?

The Statutory Framework: Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, sets out the absolute grounds for refusing registration.

Section 9(1)(b): Absolute Grounds for Refusal provides that:

The trade marks which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service shall not be registered.

Proviso: A trade mark shall not be refused registration if before the date of application for registration it has acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use made of it, or is a well-known trade mark.

The key word here is exclusively. The bar in Section 9(1)(b) operates only where the mark consists exclusively of geographical designation. A composite mark one that combines a geographical name with other distinctive elements may still be registrable, provided the overall combination achieves distinctiveness.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 9(2)(a):

A mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion. A geographical name used in connection with goods or services that do not actually originate from, or are not actually connected with, the named geography raises serious concerns under this provision.

What the Trademark Manual Says:

The Trade Marks Registry’s Manual provides practical examination rules for geographical names:

  • Population Rule: Indian place names with populations under 5,000 are generally registrable, as misuse as a geographical indicator is unlikely.
  • Large Area/Reputation Rule: Locations covering large areas with trade reputation attract objections regardless of population. Kerala clearly falls here.
  • Overseas Names Rule: For foreign places, 100,000 is a rough threshold but reputation for relevant goods/services can trigger objections even for smaller places.
  • Fanciful Use Exception: If a geographical name bears no rational connection to the goods/services, it may be treated as an arbitrary mark and accepted. e.g., NORTH POLE or MOUNT EVEREST for bananas.

Applying these Manual guidelines to the case of The Kerala Story: “Kerala” is the name of a major Indian state with an enormous and well-documented reputation in trade and tourism. It does not pass the population filter (being far above 5,000), and it has a reputation especially in the domains of Ayurveda, tourism, spices, and cultural products. The use of “Kerala” in the film’s title, where it clearly invokes the geographical identity of the state, is plainly not a “fanciful” use in the trademark sense, the very impact of the title derives from its direct invocation of the state’s real-world identity.

No Absolute Ban: The Key Principle

It is essential to state clearly: Indian law does not impose an absolute, blanket prohibition on registering a regional or state name as a trademark. The law recognises that a geographical name may be validly registered where:

(i) The name is used in a fanciful or arbitrary way, with no rational connection to the geographical origin of the goods or services. Courts have consistently held that a “geographical name not used in geographical sense to denote place of origin but used in an arbitrary or fanciful way to indicate origin or ownership regardless of location, may be sustained as a valid trade mark.”[1]

(ii) The mark has acquired secondary meaning through long, continuous, and extensive use in trade,

Kerala Tourism: The State’s Own Brand – A Model for Legitimate Use

[1] Imperial Tobacco Company of India Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks (AIR 1977 Cal 413).

The Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, has built one of the most celebrated sub-national tourism brands in the world. The brand “KERALA GOD’S OWN COUNTRY” explicitly asserts trademark protection over its identity.

“KERALA – God’s Own Country”: The iconic tagline has been the cornerstone of Kerala Tourism’s global marketing. This brand equity was built entirely by the state government for the benefit of its citizens not by a private commercial entity seeking to monopolise a geographical name for profit.

The key legal insight here is profound: when the Kerala government uses “Kerala” in its promotional marks, trademarks, tourism campaigns, or official communications, it is not appropriating someone else’s name. it is the proprietor of that governmental identity exercising its authority over the state’s public brand. This is qualitatively and legally distinct from a private film producer invoking “Kerala” in a commercial title in a manner that misrepresents the state’s culture.

Other Comparable Examples

Incredible India – Ministry of Tourism, Government of India

The central government’s “Incredible India”, managed by the Ministry of Tourism, is a registered mark and one of the most recognised country-level tourism brands globally.

Rajasthan Tourism – “Jaane Kya Dikh Jaaye”

The Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation has built an internationally recognised brand “RAJASTHAN JAANE KYA DIKH JAAYE” around Rajasthan’s heritage, forts, and culture. The promotional mark and branding materials are the state’s own protected intellectual property.

Darjeeling Tea – Tea Board of India

The Tea Board of India registered “Darjeeling” as both a certification trademark and secured it as a GI (Geographical Indication) under the GI Act, 1999. This is a textbook example of a governmental/collective body legitimately protecting a geographical name against private misappropriation.

The Fanciful Use Exception vs. The Kerala Story

Indian trademark jurisprudence has settled on a clear principle: a geographical name can survive as a valid trademark only when it is used in a manner completely divorced from its geographical significance.

The situation with The Kerala Story is the precise opposite of this. The title does not use “Kerala” fancifully or arbitrarily. It uses “Kerala” specifically and deliberately to invoke the real geographical state, its actual population, its actual culture, its actual religious composition, and its actual reputation and then proceeds, critics argued, to misrepresent all of those attributes. This is not a fanciful use; it is an intensely geographical use, which is exactly what the law disfavours for private trademark monopolisation.

In the context of a film title, Section 9(2)(a) has particular resonance. If the title “The Kerala Story” creates the impression in the minds of viewers that the film is a faithful, factual account of events that occurred in the state of Kerala when in reality, as critics and courts noted, the film’s factual claims were hotly contested, this could constitute the kind of public deception that Section 9(2)(a) is designed to prevent.

Conclusion: No Absolute Ban, But the Law is Not Neutral

Indian trademark law does not impose an absolute prohibition on registering a State’s name. The framework is more nuanced than that. What it does, through Section 9(1)(b), Section 9(2)(a), and the Registry Manual’s guidelines on areas with established reputations, is make registration effectively impossible wherever the use is substantive rather than decorative.

The Kerala Story controversy was never a trademark dispute, and it did not need to be. The courts resolved it on constitutional grounds. But the question it put in my mind had a clear answer. If someone had tried to register the trademark “The Kerala Story” invoking the name of a state specifically to draw on its real identity and reputation, the law would have said no. Not through any blanket rule, but because the principles already in place, read together, leave very little room for anything else.

Disclaimer: Please note that all trademarks, logos, and brand names used in this article are the intellectual property of their respective owners. The use of these names, trademarks, and brands is purely for informational and educational purposes to explain legal concepts and does not imply endorsement or affiliation.

Written By
Anina Varghese