Sony's PlayStation 5 and its destination in India have long been the talk of the town. And it seems that Sony has a solution regarding the PS5 branding in India. The PS5 branding is reportedly currently in an "opposite" state. This complicates Sony India's plans and could be a possible reason for the delay in the Indian release date announcement. The company has been reluctant to share information on the matter.
Sony PS5: branding issue
Get the best PlayStation 5 deals before everyone else! We'll send you pre-order details and the best PlayStation 5 deals as they become available. Please send me details of other relevant Techradar products and future brands. Please send me details of other relevant third party products. No spam, I promise. You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never share your data without your permission. According to reports from The Mako Reactor, the trademark for PS5 in India was apparently filed by a Hitesh Aswani from Delhi on October 29, 2019. This is stated in this publicly available document. While Sony completed the application for the same on February 6, 2020. Aroon Deep, a reporter for Net Neutrality and Content Regulation, caught the attention of the publication. At the moment, the Ashwani and Sony brands are in the "Opposite" status. This means that a third party considers that the mark is present in the Trademark Journal or that it is not distinctive. The Mako Reactor reached out to Sony India, who responded by saying, "Thank you for letting us know about this, however we have no comment at this time."
![]()
(Image credit: Government of India) Though Sony shouldn't have much of a problem fixing this problem as long as they can show their good will and the product was around long before the introduction. The other person claiming the mark appears to have done so for an unrelated reason. Although that may delay the launch of the PS5 in India, which already seemed risky. Sony is still hesitant to share a concrete date for the country's launch and has claimed that the November 19 date was 'wrongly' shared. Source (page 3991)