Get In Touch

From Memes to Marks: The “Cockroach Janta Party” Phenomenon and Expanding Scope of Trademark Law in India

From Memes to Marks: The “Cockroach Janta Party” Phenomenon and Expanding Scope of Trademark Law in India

Abstract

The fast proliferation of meme culture and political satire[1] on the internet has brought up some new concerns for the Intellectual Property Law in India.[2] In the last few years, there have been quite a number of rather odd trademark applications based on internet memes, fiction political parties, and meme slogans[3], which have put the issue of what degree of legal protection humor and satire can enjoy in trademark law into question[4]. One such case is the “Cockroach Janta Party,” which has started its life as an internet meme but eventually turned out to be related to trademark registrations.[5]

This paper examines how meme-based expressions are increasingly transforming into commercially valuable intellectual property assets,[6] whether terms originating from public humour and online satire can satisfy the requirements of distinctiveness, originality, and commercial use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999[7]. It further explores tension between freedom of expression, public domain culture, and proprietary rights in digital era.[8] By referring to evolving practices of unconventional trademark registrations in India and comparative global developments, the research highlights the growing intersection between internet culture and intellectual property jurisprudence.

It also evaluates whether Indian trademark law is adequately equipped to deal with rapidly evolving digital content where ownership is often collective, anonymous, or socially generated, explains how although trade marking may foster innovation and creative business practices, too much monopolization of meme culture might limit the freedom of expression of people using the Internet. In conclusion, this study attempts to add to the ongoing discourse regarding the legitimacy of identities formed by the internet community in current laws concerning intellectual property.

Keywords

Trademarks Act, Meme Culture, Intellectual Property, Digital Expression, Cockroach Janta Party, Internet Satire, Trade Marks Act 1999[9], Viral Content, Freedom of Expression, Social Media and Law.

Introduction

There has been a major shift in how culture, communication, and commerce operate because of the digital revolution.[10] With social media platforms, regular internet users can generate content that becomes popular among people very quickly[11]. The most fascinating and important aspects that are created by the existence of the digital world are memes. Memes consist of jokes, satire, and funny content that goes viral on the internet.[12] Although memes can be considered humorous and satirical in nature, there are various concerns with regard to their increased commercial value in relation to intellectual property laws. For example, the creation of a fictional political party known as the “Cockroach Janta Party,” which began as an internet meme, led to applications of a trademark for it[13]. A joke became part of a discussion on the issue of ownership and the legalities of using memes as a form of intellectual property[14]. This trend indicates that memes created on the internet become proprietary properties with time.

This brings us to the central issue do expressions created from collective humor and public participation become protected exclusively through the legal framework of trademark laws? This paper will examine this topic in the context of India, especially the possibility of applying trademark laws to internet culture.

Interpreting Internet Memes as Intellectual Property Assets

The concept of memes has its origins in the evolutionary biology field and was introduced in the work titled The Selfish Gene written by Richard Dawkins back in 1976.[15] Over time, memes developed into a new form of visual, textual, and audiovisual culture that spread fast in cyberspace.[16]

Differing from traditional copyrighted creative assets, memes tend to come into being via participation on the part of various internet users[17]. Such a feature makes application of existing IP principles challenging because they require clear identification of authors and rightful owners. At the same time, memes aquire significant economic potential in the modern world. Companies use slogans and phrases popular in social media for their marketing purposes and promotional activities[18]. As such, organizations started seeking trademarks for popular online expressions and terminology. “Cockroach Janta Party” is an example of an internet meme becoming a commercial asset due to its popularity among the online community. Having gained such economic significance, a motive for claiming trademark protection arises.

Trademark Protection in Indian Laws

In India, trademark protection laws have been laid down in the Trade Marks Act of 1999[19]. As per Section 2(1)(zb)[20], a mark is defined under trademark law as something which is capable of being represented graphically and is distinctive in respect of the good or service of the person.

Essential Conditions for Registration of Mark:

Distinctive nature

It should have distinctive elements that can distinguish the goods or services of an individual person.[21] Generic terms cannot qualify as trademarks unless they have acquired a secondary meaning through continuous usage.

A meme can qualify as distinct if it acquires association with a specific business organization.[22] But in cases where the same type of meme spreads on the Internet amongst many users without an ascertainable source, then it does not qualify.

 

Commercial Use

This law is focused mainly on protecting commercial goodwill and hence a mark needs to be used commercially.[23] Most of the internet memes have been created purely out of fun without having any commercial purpose. However, if they are used for branding purposes, they get the required commercial element to qualify as a mark.

Non-Deceptiveness

Marks that could lead to consumer deception or confusion cannot be registered under the Act. Registration could be denied for a meme-based mark where there was any ambiguity about the source or sponsor.[24]

Public Interest Balancing

Trademark laws aim to avoid monopolizing terms that are important for the general public. Therefore, the trademark court and authority should weigh commercial considerations against society’s interest.

Registration of meme expressions will raise questions of whether giving exclusive rights over widely circulated cultural expressions would affect public access to common means of expression.

“Cockroach Janta Party” Example

“Cockroach Janta Party” gained fame as a satire term which was coined due to public displeasure over political and governance-related matters[25]. The use of social media helped the expression become known as a meme term because of its common usage. Participation in trademark registration[26] shows the emergence of blurred lines between humor on the internet and marketing. This is not an isolated instance. There have been many instances across the globe where internet slangs or viral statements have found themselves entangled in trademark litigation. However, what is noteworthy about the present case of ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ is how a community-generated satire has found itself at the forefront of trademark infringement law.

Legal Challenges in Balancing Freedom of Speech and Trademark Rights

Amongst the most pressing challenges involved in meme-based trademark infringement claims is that between proprietary rights and freedom of expression.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution[27] guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Memes are the means by which certain concepts like criticism, political opinion, and satire get disseminated[28]. Hence, any restrictions imposed on memes concerning trademark law will affect free speech.

For instance, if a popular meme that conveys satire gets trademarked, the owner of that meme will be able to protect his right from any non-consensual exploitation commercially[29]. Although the use of trademarked property without commercial intentions is not an infringement of trademark law, legal actions can dissuade people from using such memes. Thus, even though international courts recognize the importance of balancing trademark laws with freedom of speech, this should happen in India as well. The issue is how to distinguish between proper brand protection and attempts at monopolizing cultural discourse.

 

 

Issues of Ownership in Internet Culture

The traditional trademark regime assumes that there are identifiable creators and owners. Not so for internet culture. A meme is usually generated anonymously.[30] Several people create different modifications of the meme and interpret it in different ways[31]. This makes the determination of ownership especially hard.

Some possible questions that can be raised include:

It is worth considering how difficult the question of ownership is in the case where the meme was created as a result of the online collaboration of users. Contrary to usual creative products, the internet memes are subjected to constant alteration and republication by millions of people, thus making one think of whether such a product may ever become the subject of proprietary right for any person at all. After all, the fact that the creation went viral cannot become justification for the right in and of itself.

This problem becomes very clear when looking at the case of “Cockroach Janta Party.” The popularity of this meme has been reached not through marketing but through mass participation of people in internet discourse. The problem is normative: shall we award trademarks to those who are faster at applying for them?

Comparative International Perspectives

There have been several other jurisdictions faced with similar disputes.[32]

United States

The United States has experienced several instances where trademarks have been sought for viral expressions, hashtags, and social media terms. The court system requires proof that there was genuine commercial application and not just popularity. In American trademark law, mere recognition of the term is not enough. [33]The phrase must be serving its source-identification function rather than being merely a means of communication.

European Union

Similarly, trademark authorities in Europe have also had to address cases related to unconventional applications related to internet culture. Marks without any distinctive function and those functioning solely as decorative or expressive elements tend to be rejected. The European position focuses on the fundamental requirement[34] of trademarks which is identification of the commercial source rather than monopoly over popular expressions.[35]

Lessons for India

From these comparative experiences, it can be inferred that there needs to be a demonstration that the expression actually serves the function of a trademark before protection is afforded. This case gives important lessons to Indian trademark authority.

Challenges for Indian Trademark Law

The issue of the applications for registration for “Cockroach Janta Party” reflects a deeper doctrinal issue in the Indian trademark law system. The Trade Marks Act of 1999 was intended to be used to regulate commercial identifiers, which can distinguish one trader’s goods or services from those of other traders. However, meme expressions are often created by the collective action of the users who criticize or participate politically in the discussion of some issue. As such, applying the principles of trademark to meme expressions poses a danger of granting proprietary protection of expression beyond the sphere of commerce to the sphere of free speech.

The Indian courts should then make a distinction between those expressions which are being used as trademarks and those which are used as speech. The popularity of the expression should not be treated as the criterion for granting the exclusive rights to its first applicant because popular expressions are not necessarily trademarks. In case when an expression is used as satire or criticism, Article 19(1)(a) should provide more judicial protection[36].

The rationale behind the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India highlights how constitutional guarantees gain prominence in the online context, where the ability to speak online aids in participating in democracy and criticizing the establishment. While trademark law seeks to achieve valid purposes like avoiding consumer confusion and protecting goodwill, such purposes cannot be used as a tool to strip away culturally relevant language from the public domain.

Reform Necessities

With this in mind, India’s trademark legislation[37] might benefit from a more subtle view of online-produced material.[38] A number of reforms should be pursued.

Future controversies regarding the trademarkability of memes will require the Indian courts to apply a constitutional perspective while making decisions regarding trademarks. In order to provide any kind of protection for such expressions, it will be necessary to prove that such an expression indicates the origin/source of the product or service. Internet popularity, social acceptance, and political importance cannot serve as the basis for the criteria.

It will also be essential to recognize a presumption favoring expressions which contain some satirical remarks, criticisms, parodies, etc[39]. These types of expressions directly contribute to the democratic process provided for in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution[40]. Trademark protection will be needed only in case where there can arise the likelihood of consumer confusion due to commercial exploitation of the meme[41].

Finally, it will be essential for the Indian trademark law to consider the participatory aspect of internet culture. If the expression does not possess any entrepreneurial commercial success but is valued only for participation, then it is necessary to be very cautious about exclusive appropriation.

Conclusion

The meme “Cockroach Janta Party” does not only constitute an extraordinary case of a trademark registration attempt. It reflects the complex process of the interconnection between internet culture, commercial branding, and intellectual property laws that emerged in the modern world.

Indeed, the rise of memes from humorous internet content to commercial products creates new challenges related to the issues of their ownership, distinctiveness, and public involvement. While the existing legal framework, such as the Trade Marks Act, 1999, sets the basic principles of trademarks’ protection, it is still unclear whether this Act is applicable to digital creations by the community.[42]

Trademark legislation needs to evolve to account for modern means of communication, but it should do so cautiously in order not to limit public freedom. Indeed, over-monopolization of memes may lead to stifling creativity, while inadequate protection will result in a lack of commercial activity. In other words, the task for India’s trademark legislation is not only about recognizing the legal aspects of memes, but rather about finding the way to ensure the coexistence of IP rights and internet democracy.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

  • INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).

II. LEGISLATION

  • The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, India Code (1999).

III. CASES

  • Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976).
  • Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharms. Ltd., (2001) 5 S.C.C. 73 (India).
  • Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addisons Paint & Chemicals Ltd., (2003) 11 S.C.C. 92 (India).
  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).

IV. BOOKS

  • Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, 2006.
  • Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. 2d ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
  • Cohen, Julie E. Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice. Yale University Press, 2012.
  • Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.
  • Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford & Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York University Press, 2013.
  • Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Penguin Press, 2004.
  • Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Penguin Press, 2008.
  • Shifman, Limor. Memes in Digital Culture. MIT Press, 2014.

V. JOURNAL ARTICLES

  • Lemley, Mark A., Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 1031 (2005).
  • Shifman, Limor, Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker, 18 J. Computer-Mediated Commc’n 362 (2013).

VI. REPORTS AND INSTITUTIONAL PUBLICATIONS

  • World Intell. Prop. Org., What Is Intellectual Property? (2020).
  • World Intell. Prop. Org., World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024 (2024).
  • World Intell. Prop. Org., World Intellectual Property Report 2024 (2024).
  • S. Patent & Trademark Off., Examination Guide 2-17: Merely Informational Matter (2017).

VII. GOVERNMENT DATABASES

VIII. NEWSPAPER AND ONLINE SOURCES

IX. SOCIAL MEDIA SOURCES

 

 

AI DISCLOSURE

The author admits to using AI-assisted tools in the early stages of research and to polish the language in this manuscript. These tools helped with grammar fixes, improving language, organizing citations, and finding relevant legal materials. However, I did all the actual legal thinking myself – analyzing laws, checking sources, formulating arguments, and making final edits. I’ve gone through everything, ensuring the accuracy of info, citations, and legal points in the manuscript. Plus, no part was created or copied without careful human review and tweaking.

So, while some assistance was used, the real work and responsibility lie with me.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] World Intell. Prop. Org., What Is Intellectual Property? (2020), https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1066.pdf

[2] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford Univ. Press 1976). https://archive.org/download/pdfy-RHEZa8riPwBuUyrV/The%20Selfish%20Gene.pdf

[3] Trade Marks Registry, Public Search of Trade Marks, Intell. Prop. India, https://tmrsearch.ipindia.gov.in/tmrpublicsearch/

[4] Taylor Osher, Branding a Viral Moment: The Complexities of Trademarks for Famous Phrases, PR News (Apr. 1, 2025), https://www.prnewsonline.com/branding-a-viral-moment-the-complexities-of-trademarks-for-famous-phrases/.

[5] Bar & Bench, Facebook Post (May 21, 2026), https://www.facebook.com/barandbench/posts/two-trademark-applications-have-been-filed-for-cockroach-janta-party-a-satirical/1366224895553620/.

[6] See generally Limor Shifman, Memes in Digital Culture (MIT Press 2014). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262525435/memes-in-digital-culture/.

[7] The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, §§ 2(1)(zb), 9, 18, India Code (1999), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2263.

[8] See generally Julie E. Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice 213–44 (Yale Univ. Press 2012), https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300146830/configuring-the-networked-self/; Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity

[9] The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, India Code (1999).https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2C_1999.pdf

[10] Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society (2d ed., Wiley-Blackwell 2010) https://memotef.web.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/file%20lezioni/Manuel%20Castells%20-%20The%20Rise%20of%20the%20Network%20Society,%20With%20a%20New%20Preface_%20Volume%20I_%20The%20Information%20Age_%20Economy,%20Society,%20and%20Culture%20(Information%20Age%20Series)%20(2010,%20Wiley-Blackwell)%20-%20libgen.lc_.pdf

[11] Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Penguin Press 2008). https://techofcomm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/here_comes_everybody_power_of_organizing_without_organizations.pdf

[12] Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale Univ. Press 2006), https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs14s

[13] Press Trust of India, Three Trademark Applications Filed to Register Name ‘Cockroach Janata Party’, Official Records Show, Econ. Times (May 21, 2026) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/three-trademark-applications-filed-to-register-name-cockroach-janata-party-official-records-show/articleshow/131247642.cms.

[14] Gulam Jeelani, Two Trademark Applications Filed for Cockroach Janta Party as Satire Movement Gains Momentum Online, Mint (May 21, 2026, 6:59 PM IST), https://www.livemint.com/news/trends/two-trademark-applications-filed-for-cockroach-janta-party-as-satire-movement-gains-momentum-bjp-11779369596464.html.

[15] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene 192 (1976). https://archive.org/download/pdfy-RHEZa8riPwBuUyrV/The%20Selfish%20Gene.pdf

[16] Limor Shifman, Memes in Digital Culture (2014). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs14s

[17] Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford & Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture (N.Y.U. Press 2013). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298428278_Henry_Jenkins_Sam_Ford_Joshua_Green_Spreadable_media_Creating_Value_and_meaning_in_A_Networked_Culture_New_York_New_York_University_Press_2013

[18] WIPO, World Intellectual Property Report (latest edition). https://www.wipo.int/en/web/world-ip-report

[19] Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, India Code (1999). https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/22958

[20] Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 2(1)(zb), India Code (1999). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2C_1999.pdf

[21] Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/537/4/468363/

[22] Trade Marks Act § 9; relevant Indian trademark jurisprudence. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/section-9-of-trademark-act-case-laws

[23]The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 2(1)(zb), India Code (1999), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2263; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharms. Ltd., (2001) 5 S.C.C. 73, 82–83 (India).

[24] Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 9(2). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_11_60_00004_199947_1517807323972&sectionId=16794&sectionno=9&orderno=9

[25] Gulam Jeelani, Two Trademark Applications Filed for Cockroach Janta Party as Satire Movement Gains Momentum Online, Mint (May 21, 2026, 6:59 PM IST), https://www.livemint.com/news/trends/two-trademark-applications-filed-for-cockroach-janta-party-as-satire-movement-gains-momentum-bjp-11779369596464.html.

[26] Trademark Application No. 6943072, COCKROACH JANTA PARTY (India Trade Marks Registry filed May 20, 2026).  https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cockroach-vs-cockroach-trademark-fight-begins-to-register-cockroach-janta-party-3-applications-filed-101779372156372.html

[27] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a), https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-19-protection-of-certain-rights-regarding-freedom-of-speech-etc/.

[28] Limor Shifman, Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker, 18 J. Computer-Mediated Commc’n 362, 362–77 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12013.

[29] Ramon Casas Vallés, Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression, 36 IIC 188 (2005). http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/68497/1/254.pdf.pdf

[30] Henry Jenkins et al., Spreadable Media (2013). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298428278_Henry_Jenkins_Sam_Ford_Joshua_Green_Spreadable_media_Creating_Value_and_meaning_in_A_Networked_Culture_New_York_New_York_University_Press_2013

[31] Limor Shifman, Memes in Digital Culture (2014). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs14s

[32] Limor Shifman, Memes in Digital Culture (2014). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs14s

[33] In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1227 (T.T.A.B. 2010). http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2010/10/precedential-no-39-ttab-re-designates.html

[34] Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v. Boots, Joined Cases C-108/97 & C-109/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:230. https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-108/97&language=en

[35] Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, art. 7. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R1001

[36] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. https://foongchengleong.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Shreya-Singhal-v-Union-of-India.pdf

[37] Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) Reports. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/sct

[38] Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford & Joshua Green, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture 27–55 (N.Y. Univ. Press 2013). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298428278_Henry_Jenkins_Sam_Ford_Joshua_Green_Spreadable_media_Creating_Value_and_meaning_in_A_Networked_Culture_New_York_New_York_University_Press_2013

[39] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 S.C.C. 1, 89–92 (India). . https://foongchengleong.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Shreya-Singhal-v-Union-of-India.pdf

[40] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a). https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-19-protection-of-certain-rights-regarding-freedom-of-speech-etc/

[41] Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharms. Ltd., (2001) 5 S.C.C. 73.

[42] Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, § 2(1)(zb), India Code (1999). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2C_1999.pdf

Mansi Mishra
Author: Mansi Mishra

Worked with Little Akshar Pre-Primary School Undergraduate law student at GGSIPU, Delhi (BBA LLB)