At the heart of this discussion lies a nuanced point of trademark law: can a term rooted in religious tradition, one that predates any modern organisation, nonetheless acquire distinctiveness and exclusive association through long and continuous use, such that its unauthorised adoption amounts to trademark infringement and passing off? This question becomes even more sensitive when the term represents not merely a word, but a symbol of faith, collective identity, and spiritual lineage.
It is against this legal backdrop that the Delhi Commercial Court delivered its judgment in Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) vs Nirankari Dham & Ors. on September 19, 2025, an important ruling at the intersection of religious heritage and modern IP law. The dispute required the Court to examine whether the plaintiff, a globally recognised socio-spiritual organisation with decades of continuous use of the term “Nirankari,” could restrain a breakaway group from adopting a deceptively similar identity. The case facts, ranging from long-standing trademark registrations and extensive goodwill to allegations of bad-faith imitation and misuse of the late spiritual head’s image, provided a practical canvas on which to apply this legal principle.
The plaintiff, Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.), is the administrative body of the Sant Nirankari Mission, a socio-spiritual movement founded in 1929 in Peshawar and registered in India in 1948. Over the decades, it has grown into a vast organisation with more than 3,000 branches across India and abroad. From its headquarters in Delhi, it holds the famous annual Sant Nirankari Samagam, publishes a multilingual magazine, operates schools, colleges, hospitals, and charitable centres, and maintains a strong digital presence through its websites, nirankari.org and nirankari.com. In all of these activities, the word “Nirankari” is central. It appears in its registered trademarks, including names such as Sant Nirankari Mandal, Sant Nirankari Sewa Dal, and Annual Nirankari Sant Samagam. Through continuous use, the Mandal argued, the word had acquired a secondary meaning uniquely identifying its mission and work.
The defendants were a group of individuals led by Defendant No.2, a former volunteer and poet within the Mandal. In 2018, Defendant No. 2 and others registered a separate trust called “Nirankari Dham.” According to Mandal, this new trust adopted a deceptively similar name, registered the domain nirankaridham.com, used an email address of the same name, and circulated videos and WhatsApp messages featuring photographs of the late spiritual head Baba Hardev Singh Ji. It even organised satsangs, devotional gatherings, under the banner “Nirankari Satsang,” urging devotees to divert donations away from the plaintiff. The Mandal alleged that these actions were intended to exploit its reputation and mislead its largely rural and semi-urban followers.
In response, the defendants raised a series of defences. They argued that the plaintiff did not invent the word “Nirankari”, but rather it is a religious term derived from the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, and the Sanskrit “Nirakara”, meaning “formless.” They pointed to the nineteenth-century “Sri Nirankari Darbar,” founded by Baba Dayal Singh, and claimed the plaintiff itself was merely an offshoot of this older movement. Because “Nirankari” referred to a formless God, they said, no one could claim a monopoly over it. They also pleaded their constitutional right under Article 26 to manage their own religious affairs. Finally, they alleged that the lawsuit was a retaliatory move to pressure defendant no. 2 to withdraw a criminal complaint he had earlier filed against the Mandal’s leadership.
The Court reviewed the extensive evidence. The Mandal produced trademark registrations, letters from the United Nations recognising its special consultative status, website records, and testimony from devotees who stated they were genuinely confused by the defendants’ programs. Cross-examination of the Mandal’s witnesses revealed that the single word “Nirankari” had not been registered as an independent trademark and that other businesses, such as jewellers, used the word. Yet the witnesses remained firm that the defendants’ events looked and felt like official Sant Nirankari gatherings and that they had even offered donations, thinking the programmes were genuine.
Defendant No. 2 admitted to his long association with the Mandal and acknowledged using photographs of Baba Hardev Singh Ji, although he denied hosting deceptive satsangs. Another defence witness, Baba Jagdarshan Singh of the historic Nirankari Darbar, confirmed the word’s religious antiquity but conceded he had never objected to the Mandal’s trademark registrations or use of the term.
Against this backdrop, the Court framed a series of issues:
- Whether the Mandal had concealed material facts or lacked locus standi;
- Whether the suit was a counterblast to defendant no. 2’s separate complaint; and
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the injunctions and damages it sought for trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court rejected the primary objections and held that the defendants had not demonstrated any concealment of material facts against the plaintiff. The Mandal clearly had the right to sue, as they are the registered proprietor of numerous trademarks containing the term “Nirankari.” The fact that another historical Nirankari sect existed did not negate the plaintiff’s statutory rights. The argument that the suit was retaliatory also failed; the evidence showed that defendant no. 2’s criminal complaint had already been dismissed due to non-appearance, and no credible evidence of harassment was presented.
The heart of the decision lay in the trademark analysis. The Court acknowledged that “Nirankari” is a word of religious origin, meaning a devotee of the formless God, but emphasised that even descriptive or sacred terms can acquire distinctiveness when used continuously and extensively enough that the public associates them with a single source. Citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents, such as Mahindra & Mahindra Paper Mills Ltd. vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and TV Venugopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., the Court explained that what matters is not where a word comes from, but what it signifies to the relevant public. The Mandal’s long, uninterrupted use of “Nirankari” in a family of registered marks, its global following, and its extensive charitable and religious activities had given the word a secondary meaning pointing uniquely to the plaintiff.
Equally telling was the defendants’ conduct. Defendant No. 2 had once been a member of the Mandal and knew the value of its name. His trust’s choice of “Nirankari Dham,” its website and email address, and its use of Baba Hardev Singh Ji’s photographs created a strong likelihood of confusion, especially among rural devotees. The Court found no innocent explanation for this adoption and regarded it as a classic case of bad faith aimed at diverting goodwill.
The defendants also faced Mandal’s claim of personality rights over the image of Baba Hardev Singh Ji. Here, too, the Court sided with the plaintiff, relying on recent rulings recognising a right to control the commercial use of a person’s likeness. By displaying the late leader’s photograph to promote their gatherings, the defendants had infringed that right.
Although the Mandal sought damages of one crore rupees, it had not quantified a specific monetary loss. In view of the same and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court awarded only nominal damages of INR 5 lakh. The more important relief was injunctive. The Court permanently restrained the defendants from using the word “Nirankari” or any deceptively similar mark in their trust name, on their websites, in emails, or on social media. It also ordered the defendants to remove photographs of Baba Hardev Singh Ji and any material suggesting an association with the plaintiff.
The ruling carries lasting significance for religious and charitable organisations. First, it affirms that even words with deep spiritual or generic roots can, through long and exclusive association, acquire the secondary meaning needed for trademark protection. Sacred origin alone does not prevent a term from functioning as a badge of source when the public identifies it with a particular body. Second, the decision strengthens the emerging doctrine of personality rights in India, recognising that spiritual leaders and their organisations can control how their images are used. Finally, the judgment underscores that prior relationship and bad faith matter: someone who has worked inside an organisation and later adopts its core identity will face a high bar in claiming innocent or generic use.
In sum, the case is far more than a quarrel over a name. It shows how intellectual property law protects not just commercial brands but also the hard-won goodwill of faith-based movements. By granting strong injunctive relief, the Delhi Commercial Court signalled that decades of dedication to a distinctive identity cannot be undone by invoking the sacred origins of a word. This case serves as a reminder for religious and charitable organisations to protect their names and images carefully, as any commercial brand. For those who might attempt to imitate them, it is a clear warning that having respect for a term does not exempt one from the intentional exploitation of its reputation.
Authors: Kratika Patel and Shivi Gupta
First Published by: Mondaq here