Reliance Withdraws Operation Sindoor Trademark Application Following Public Backlash

Reliance’s Swift Withdrawal of the Controversial Trademark

Reliance Industries Ltd has officially withdrawn its trademark application for “Operation Sindoor,” the codename for India’s military counter-terrorism operation against Pakistan, following public backlash over the corporate attempt to claim rights to a symbol of national security and bravery. The company announced the withdrawal on Thursday, just one day after the application was filed with the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks.

The swift reversal came amid growing criticism on social media and in political circles over the appropriateness of a private corporation attempting to trademark a term associated with a sensitive military operation. Operation Sindoor has gained significant national importance as a symbol of India’s response to cross-border terrorism, making the trademark attempt particularly controversial.

The company’s quick response to the developing controversy demonstrates the sensitivity surrounding military operations and national security symbols in India, where such terms often transcend their operational context to become cultural touchstones representing national resolve and sacrifice.

Unauthorized Filing by Junior Employee Cited as Reason

In explaining the controversial application, Reliance Industries attributed the filing to an unauthorized action by a junior employee. According to the company’s statement, Jio Studios, a unit of Reliance Industries, never intended to seek exclusive rights to the military operation’s name.

“Jio Studios, a unit of Reliance Industries, has withdrawn its trademark application, which was filed inadvertently by a junior person without authorization,” the company stated, distancing its senior leadership from the decision to pursue the trademark.

This explanation suggests a breakdown in internal approval processes for trademark applications within the conglomerate, raising questions about oversight mechanisms for actions that could have significant public relations implications. The incident highlights the importance of robust approval channels for legal filings that might touch on sensitive national issues.

The speed with which Reliance addressed the situation—withdrawing the application and issuing a public statement within 24 hours—suggests the company recognized the potential reputational damage that could result from being perceived as attempting to commercialize a military operation’s codename.

Multiple Applications Filed for the Military Operation Codename

Interestingly, Reliance Industries was not alone in its interest in trademarking “Operation Sindoor.” A total of four applications were filed with the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, all seeking to use the phrase for various entertainment-related services.

The applications were filed between 10:42 AM and 6:27 PM, with Reliance being the first to submit its application. The other three applicants included a Mumbai resident, a retired Indian Air Force officer, and a Delhi-based lawyer—representing a diverse group of interests in securing rights to the military operation’s name.

All four applications sought registration under Class 41 of the Nice Classification, which covers a broad range of entertainment, education, and cultural services. This classification is typically used for intellectual property related to media production, publishing, and event organization.

A screenshot of the trademark application registry showing multiple filings for “Operation Sindoor” under Class 41 of the Nice Classification. (Photo: Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks)

The simultaneous interest from multiple parties in trademarking the operation name suggests a perceived commercial value in associating with the military action, possibly due to heightened public interest in content related to India’s counter-terrorism efforts and national security operations.

Entertainment Industry’s Interest in the Military Operation Name

The classification under which all four applications were filed—Class 41—reveals a specific interest in using “Operation Sindoor” for entertainment and media purposes. This category specifically includes film and media production, digital content delivery, publishing, and cultural activities.

Such classification is commonly used by OTT platforms, production houses, broadcasters, and event companies, indicating that the applicants likely envisioned using “Operation Sindoor” as a title or brand for creative content such as films, web series, documentaries, or books based on the military operation.

Reliance’s specific application, according to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks registry, claimed scope for entertainment, publishing, and language training services. This broad application suggests that Jio Studios, Reliance’s entertainment division, may have been considering a multimedia approach to content based on Operation Sindoor.

The entertainment industry’s growing interest in creating content based on military operations and national security events represents a global trend, with numerous successful productions centered around real military missions. However, the attempt to trademark the actual operation name rather than simply using it in content titles represents a more controversial approach.

Reliance’s Official Statement on the Withdrawal

In its official statement announcing the withdrawal, Reliance Industries emphasized its patriotic stance and respect for the military operation’s significance in the national consciousness. The company specifically acknowledged Operation Sindoor’s importance as “an evocative symbol of Indian bravery” that is “now a part of the national consciousness.”

The statement further expressed the company’s pride in the operation, which was conducted in response to terrorism: “Reliance Industries and all its stakeholders are incredibly proud of Operation Sindoor, which came about in response to a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam.”

This strongly worded statement appears designed to reaffirm Reliance’s patriotic credentials and distance the company from any perception that it was attempting to commercialize a symbol of national security. By emphasizing the company’s “India First” motto and support for the armed forces, Reliance sought to reframe the narrative away from commercial exploitation toward national solidarity.

Operation Sindoor’s Connection to the Pahalgam Terrorist Attack

Reliance’s statement specifically referenced Operation Sindoor as a response to a “Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam,” providing important context about the military operation’s origins. This connection to a specific terrorist incident highlights the sensitive nature of the operation and explains some of the public backlash to trademarking attempts.

The Pahalgam attack referenced in the statement was a terrorist incident that targeted tourists in the popular Kashmir valley destination. The attack, which resulted in multiple casualties, prompted India’s military response codenamed Operation Sindoor, aimed at neutralizing terrorist threats and delivering a strong message regarding India’s stance on cross-border terrorism.

The operation’s connection to a specific terrorist attack that claimed Indian lives makes the trademark applications particularly sensitive, as it involves not just military symbolism but also the memory of victims of terrorism and the national response to that tragedy.

Implications of Trademarking Military Operation Names

The controversy surrounding the “Operation Sindoor” trademark applications raises broader questions about the appropriateness and implications of private entities attempting to trademark names associated with military operations, national security, or historical events of significant public importance.

Trademarking such terms could potentially restrict their use in public discourse, journalism, academic research, or creative expression, creating a chilling effect on discussions of important national events. It also raises questions about who should rightfully “own” terms that have entered the national consciousness through events of collective significance.

From a legal perspective, trademark applications for terms of significant public interest or historical importance often face higher scrutiny. In many jurisdictions, terms considered part of common heritage or public domain may be denied trademark protection or granted with significant limitations.

The rapid withdrawal of Reliance’s application suggests an acknowledgment of these complex implications and the potential public relations challenges of pursuing exclusive rights to a term so closely associated with national security and military sacrifice.

Commercial Interest in Military Operations: A Growing Trend?

The multiple trademark applications for “Operation Sindoor” point to a growing commercial interest in military operations and national security events as potential entertainment properties. This reflects a broader global trend of media companies developing content based on real military missions, counter-terrorism operations, and geopolitical conflicts.

In recent years, numerous successful films, web series, and books have been based on actual military operations, often enjoying substantial commercial success and public interest. This trend has created a competitive environment where securing exclusive rights to operation names or stories has become a valuable business strategy.

However, the “Operation Sindoor” controversy highlights the sensitive balance that must be maintained between legitimate storytelling about important national events and respect for their historical, cultural, and emotional significance to the nation, military personnel, and families affected by the original incidents.

As Reliance’s experience demonstrates, companies must carefully navigate the complex intersection of commercial interests, intellectual property law, and national sentiment when developing content based on events of significant public importance. The swift withdrawal of the trademark application and emphasis on respect for the operation’s national significance suggests important lessons for other media companies considering similar strategies.

While commercial interest in telling stories of military bravery and national security operations is likely to continue growing, the “Operation Sindoor” trademark controversy may serve as a cautionary example about the boundaries of appropriate commercialization and the importance of respecting the shared national ownership of symbols representing collective sacrifice and resolve.