TATA vs. GREENPEACE CASE

Introduction

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 has been planned to go about as an amazing asset in the possession of trade mark proprietors and clients and to secure their inclinations and the interests of the overall population against the inconvenient utilization of their trademarks.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 has illustrated certain standards as under Sections 29 which recognize instances of infringement of trademarks. This exploration note has attempted to relate the law of trademarks and trademark infringement with the most recent instance of TATA versus Greenpeace India wherein the TATA group had hauled Greenpeace India to the Court for utilizing its trademark, for example, the 'T inside a hover', in an internet game as of late dispatched by the association on its site to advance a natural reason and in this manner infringement their trademark rights.

The TATA vs. Greenpeace case

This is the latest case including TATA Steel Ltd. furthermore, a global natural NGO called Greenpeace. TATA Steel Ltd. plans to set up a steel plant at Dharma Port which is arranged off the shoreline of Orissa and is purportedly imperiling the lives of various Olive Ridley turtles acclimating close to the port. Greenpeace at first fought that TATA didn't conform to all the necessities of the Environment Ministry while TATA contended that they had got the environmental leeway. Following consequently, Greenpeace India raised genuine worries against TATA's new venture.

It dispatched a web-based game on its official site title 'Turtle v. TATA' to create public mindfulness with respect to TATA's steel port situated off the bank of Orissa, which is one of the last settling grounds of the imperiled Olive Ridley Turtles. The game, an interpretation of 'Pac-Man' includes the yellow turtles to eat the same number of white balls and other ocean creatures without running into the TATA evil presences. TATA Group battles that Greenpeace India infringed their trademark 0rights and defamed their standing by utilizing the TATA's trademark and logo, 'the T inside a hover' to depict the 'evil spirits' in the game.

Greenpeace India has depended upon Section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which expresses that:

An enrolled trademark is infringed by an individual who, not being an enlisted owner or an individual utilizing via allowed use, utilizes throughout the trade, an imprint mark which-

(a) is indistinguishable with or same to the enrolled exchange mark; and

(b) is utilized corresponding to products or services which are not homogeneous to those for which the trademark is enlisted; and

(c) the enrolled trademark has standing in India and the utilization of the mark without due reason exploits or is adverse to, the particular character or reputation of the enlisted trade mark.

Greenpeace keeps up that since the trademark (T inside a circle) was utilized for social affair public help against the development of Dharma Port Company Ltd. also, to reasonably condemn the demonstrations of the TATA group, it is no possible way infringed their trademark rights. Greenpeace battled that there was no goal to criticize the TATA group, while the TATA devils were utilized as a medium to advise individuals regarding the damage the new task of TATA’s could cause to the all-around imperiled types of turtles.

Generally in situations where the encroaching mark is indistinguishable with the enlisted trademark and the products or services are likewise indistinguishable with the goods or services covered by the enrolled trade mark the court will assume that such mark is probably going to create turmoil in the psyche of people in general.

The law of trademark India permits the use of one's trademark by another just in specific circumstances. This arrangement has been portrayed under Section 30 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and peruses as follows:

Nothing will forestall the utilization of enrolled trademarks by any individual for the motivations behind distinguishing products or services as those of the owner, given the utilization:

a) is as per the genuine practices in modern or business matters, and;

b) isn't, for example, to exploit or to be inconvenient to the unmistakable character or repute of the trademark.

It is critical to note here that if the infringer has totally replicated the mark and made a copy suppression of it, no additional proof is needed to demonstrate trademark infringement. At the point when the similitude is so close in order to make it difficult to assume that such stamps were concocted freely of one another, without proof of a typical beginning, the end is consistent that one gathering duplicated the characteristic of another and appropriately Greenpeace should be subject for trademark infringement.

Notwithstanding, we based game is planned as an inventive, quiet, and non-fierce stage to cause to notice the danger that the Olive Ridley Sea Turtles are looking because of the Project.

Greenpeace India presents that its utilization of the TATA trademark and "T" gadget doesn't add up to reserve infringement, as it isn't business use, intended to benefit or pick up from the goodwill or reputation of such checks.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court has pronounced that Greenpeace India, which is a non-benefit association, has not enjoyed any benefit making by dispatching the 'Turtle v. TATA' game on its site. Likewise, the point of the client of the trademark was to welcome the consideration of the individuals towards the proprietors of the brand name. The utilization of the TATA's logo by Greenpeace has been named just de-nominative in nature by the Court and the utilization of the trademark as an object of basic remark doesn't add up to infringement.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has, in its judgment, offered inclination to natural issues within reach and the need to earn public premium and mindfulness. Greenpeace, in its most recent activity to advise individuals regarding the mischief the TATA venture would cause to the Olive Ridley Turtles, has mocked the fundamental morals of the business. The internet game, which utilizes the TATA logo to depict the devils has unmistakably maligned TATA's standing. In spite of the fact that the development of the steel plant for example Dharma Port Ltd. by the TATA group has become an extraordinary ecological issue and a danger to the life and duration of the types of the Olive Ridley Turtles, the demonstration of Greenpeace India has to be sure brought about trademark infringement as specified under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 along these lines influencing the reputation and image of the TATA group.

BY-

ANANYA PANDEY