'Captain Cool' is for everyone, not just Dhoni: Delhi lawyer opposes trademark, calls it generic

A Delhi lawyer has opposed MS Dhoni’s trademark claim over 'Captain Cool', calling it generic and widely used. The challenge argues Dhoni cannot own a public phrase linked to sporting culture and other athletes.

Former Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni recently applied to trademark the phrase 'Captain Cool'. This term has been widely used by fans and media to describe his calm style of leadership. Dhoni’s application was meant to protect the phrase under Class 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This class covers services like sports training, entertainment, and cultural activities.

The application was accepted by the Trade Marks Registry and published in the official journal. This allowed others to file any formal opposition within the required time.

Now, a Delhi-based lawyer named Ashutosh Choudhary has formally opposed this move, reports Bar and Bench.

Why was the trademark opposed?

Ashutosh Choudhary argues that the term 'Captain Cool' is generic. He says it is not special or unique to Dhoni and has been used for other cricketers too. The phrase, according to him, is part of everyday sports talk and does not show any one brand or service.

He also said that just because Dhoni is famous doesn’t mean he can claim a phrase used for many athletes. Fame, he argues, is not enough to gain legal rights over a term unless it is backed by consistent commercial use.

The lawyer’s key arguments

As per the report in Bar and Bench, the lawyer has challenged MS Dhoni's trademark bid basis the following:

• Generic and common: The phrase 'Captain Cool' is used in sports to describe calm captains, not just Dhoni.
• No exclusive use: Other cricketers, including Sri Lanka’s Arjuna Ranatunga, were also called 'Captain Cool' in the past.
• No strong proof: Dhoni's team claimed they used the term since 2008, but gave no strong documents or advertisements to prove this.
• Sudden amendment: The claim of prior use was added late, after repeated examination reports and hearing notices from the Registry. The opponent says this was done unfairly.
• Procedural concerns: The lawyer raised doubts about how the Trade Marks Registry handled the case. He claims there were multiple hearings, and changes were made without proper checks.
• Pending disputes: The application also has a conflict with an earlier trademark. That matter is still pending, but Dhoni’s mark was accepted before that was resolved.

The case brings up an important question: Can a public nickname be owned by one person? Phrases like 'The Wall' (used for Rahul Dravid) or 'God of Cricket' (used for Sachin Tendulkar) are often used in media and by fans. The lawyer argues these are public expressions and no one should get private rights over them.

He warns that allowing such trademarks can harm the fairness of the system. If famous people start claiming ownership of every popular phrase used for them, it could block free speech and hurt others in the same field.

What next?

According to Bar and Bench, the case will now move into formal opposition proceedings under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This section allows anyone to oppose a trademark if they believe it does not meet legal requirements.

The opposition was filed through a Delhi-based law firm named KAnalysis Attorneys at Law.

It is now up to the Trade Marks Registry to hear both sides and decide if Dhoni’s application can go forward or if it must be rejected.