TATA Sons v. Greenpeace Intl., IA No. 9089/2010 in CS (OS) 1407/2010
FACTS:
Dharma Port Company Ltd. (DPCL), a 50-50 joint venture between Tata Steel Ltd. and Larsen & Toubro Ltd., bagged the project of build, maintaining and operating a Port in Orissa on the mouth of Dharma River.
DPCL had obtained all the necessary permissions and clearances to go ahead with the project, including the permissions from environment regulatory and appellate authorities.
Greenpeace International initiative protested against the construction of the Dam, claiming long-term harmful impact on the environment and the Sea Turtle ecosystem.
Greenpeace International, as a part of the protest, launched a packman-styled game on their website titled “TURTLE v. TATA” which allegedly used the “TATA” logo mark with the stylized version of its “T within a circle” device and also made references to “Tata demons”.
TATA Sons Limited initiated a trademark infringement suit against Greenpeace international and Greenpeace India Initiative for using their Trademark without prior permission from the plaintiff.
The use of a registered trademark for the purpose of criticism or protest is not trademark infringement, provided that the use is fair and bona fide.
ISSUE:
Whether Greenpeace’s use of Tata’s Trademark and logo was a parody or an infringement?
HELD:
The Delhi High Court held in Tata Sons Ltd v. Greenpeace International & Anr, 2011 that the use of a registered trademark for the purpose of criticism or protest is not trademark infringement, provided that the use is fair and bona fide.
The Court found that the use of the TATA trademarks in the video game “Turtle vs. TATA” was fair and bona fide because it was a parody of Tata’s business practices and was unlikely to cause any confusion among consumers.
The Court also held that the use of the TATA trademarks was protected by the right to freedom of expression.
The Court’s decision also strikes a balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect intellectual property. It acknowledges that the right to freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be protected, even if it means that the rights of trademark owners may be limited in some cases.