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:

RULE:

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: