The High Court in Bombay specifically supported the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in dismissing the contention that, sincerely, there must be a declaration that TikTok has been a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules of 2017. TikTok Limited had been aggrieved by the order and it had argued that this was not done because the Registrar had not applied Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act and had not considered a substantial material showing that it is globally famous. It was also argued by the petitioner that the continuance of the ban in India was not taken into consideration as well when Section 11(9)(i) clarifies that use in India is not requisite to be awarded the status of well-known mark. The Court however held that Section 11(6) is not exhaustive and the Registrar can take into consideration the ban by the Government on the ground of national sovereignty, integrity and public order to be a sufficient reason of refusal. One of the concerns, which is not over, is that the ban can be considered a serious constitutional issue. In another case, the Court made clarification to the effect that the wrong mentioning of Section 9 was not a ground of invalidation of the order as the reasoning bearing substance was present. It insisted that trademark law should fit into the larger constitutional context and that state-ennacted bans may be applied in assessing trademark status, despite the registration occurring.