– Dissecting the case of TATA Sons Ltd. Vs. Greenpeace Int. Ltd & Anr.
- Chintan M Kumbharikar & Adv. Sai Kulkarni
Introduction:
Interesting questions arose before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court when the mighty global conglomerate TATA appeared before it claiming Trademark Infringement by an environmental group. Can the use of a world-famous trademark be excused under the veil of parody or protest? What happens when a powerful corporate identity clashes with the freedom of speech of an environmental activist group?
This case represents an intersection between IPR and Constitutional Law, particularly concerning the extent to which parody or satire can be protected under the Indian Constitution — the right to freedom of speech and expression — when it appears to infringe upon statutory rights granted by the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Background:
The cause of the dispute can be traced back to The Dhamra Port Project being built under the joint venture of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and TATA Steel Ltd. This joint venture was given the name ‘The Dhamra Port Company Ltd’ (DPCL), which was awarded a concession by Government of Orissa to build and operate a port north of the mouth of river Dhamra in Bhadrak district for a total period of 34 years including a period of 4 years for construction.
This port was situated dangerously close to ecologically sensitive regions like the Gahirmatha Turtle Sanctuary and Bhitarkanika National Park — both crucial habitats for the endangered Olive Ridley Sea Turtles.
Taking into account the environmental sensitivity of the project, DPCL took all the necessary permissions and clearances from all appropriate government authorities to go ahead with the construction with the Dharma Port, which would be the most cost-effective and efficient port on the Eastern Coast of India.
It is important to note at this juncture that various objections in regard to environment protection, pollution of coastal zone regulation etc., had been raised, considered and dealt with by the appropriate regulatory authorities and appellate bodies.
In terms of the environmental surroundings of the project, the Dharma River is a home for the Olive Red Turtles – a rare species, in need of attention and protection. Further, the construction of the port is less than 15 kilometres from Gahimatha, one of the world’s largest Olive Ridly Sea Turtle nesting beaches, and just five kilometres from the Bhitarkanika National Park, India, second largest mangrove forest and home to the saltwater crocodile.
This is where the Defendants in the Case, Greenpeace International Ltd. comes into picture. They are a Global Non-profit Organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace and is consistent in espousing environmental issues and the impact on environment and wildlife.
The Dispute:
They claim that the port’s ongoing expansion work will have serious long-term environmental and social implications. It endangers the surrounding mangrove forests and the wildlife, particularly the endangered Olive Ridley Sea Turtles, which is a protected species under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and is also vulnerable, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red Data Book. Due to these reasons, they strongly objected to the said DPCL project.
Greenpeace launched a creative protest campaign — including a web-based parody video game, mimicking the classic Pac-Man format.
However, the twist? Instead of the usual characters, the game used the TATA logo (“T” in a circle) to depict the company as the villain, “eating” the turtles and marine ecology. This symbolic usage of the Tata mark sparked a full-blown trademark battle in court.
The Contentions of the Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff, TATA approached the High Court of Delhi seeking a decree for permanent injunction (prohibition) restraining the defendants from using the TATA mark, and sought ₹10 Crore in damages.
TATA contended that – they have acquired all the clearances of the Environment and therefore the use of the TATA trademark is textbook case of libel (defamation), especially when they had obtained the relevant environmental clearances. Further they also contested that the of the TATA trademark as part of the Online Video game has led to the tarnishing of image of the well-known business tycoons of India i.e. TATA.
They also claimed that the use of the Tata mark, particularly the well-known “T in a circle” device, was a blatant trademark infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Defendant’s parody through the video game tarnished Tata’s reputation, causing commercial and reputational harm.
As such, TATA prayed for issue of interim and permanent injunction as prima facie libel had occurred and the use of the mark was without justification.
The Contentions of the Defendants:
Greenpeace submitted that its use of the TATA trademark and “T” device does not amount to trademark infringement, as it is not commercial usage, meant to profit or gain from the goodwill or reputation of such marks. It alleged that a bare perusal of section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 would show that it envisages the use of a registered trademark, for purposes of criticism, fair comment and parody so that such use would not amount to infringement of trademark. The fact that use of a trademark for any of the aforesaid purposes, is justified under the ground of freedom of speech and expression is abundantly clear from the use of the words “without due cause” in Section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
They Claimed that the game was part of a peaceful, non-commercial campaign to raise environmental awareness. They argued that Tata had ignored environmental concerns, and no recent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been conducted. It submitted that the acts of Greenpeace amount to a peaceful, creative and nonviolent/non confrontationist mechanism of registering protest and concerned against the project, which is perceived as an environmental disaster in the making. The use of the TATA mark and logo is essentially nominative in nature and cannot amount to infringement of trademark(s).
It was submitted that the larger objective of the Game is being to arouse and mobilize public opinion and awareness, against a project that it honestly perceived as an environmental disaster in the making and therefore any restriction on the game would amount to an unreasonable fetter and restriction on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The Questions of Law:
Does the use of Trademark of TATA by the Defendant result in infringement of Trademark under Section 29 (4) of Trademarks Act, 1999?
Can the Court grant relief of injunction as sought by the Plaintiff without the trial for defamation?
Does the use of the supposed Parodical use of the TM of TATA by the Defendant fall under the freedom of speech and expression as espoused in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution?
The Ruling of the Court: A Win for Satire and Free Speech
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat delivered a nuanced judgment, balancing intellectual property law with constitutional freedoms. The Court ruled:
No Trademark Infringement: Since the use of the mark was not in the course of trade or for commercial gain, Section 29(4) was not attracted. Parody, satire, and criticism done non-commercially do not dilute or infringe a trademark.
Freedom of Expression Prevails: The parodic use of the trademark was a legitimate exercise of free speech, especially given the environmental context and public interest involved.
No Interim Injunction: The Court refused to issue an interim injunction, holding that defamation claims must be tested at trial and cannot be pre-judged.
Conclusion: A Landmark on the Limits of Trademark Protection
This case is a milestone in Indian legal jurisprudence, particularly in balancing IPR with civil liberties. The judgment reaffirmed that trademarks are not above criticism, and creative expressions — even if critical or humorous — enjoy Constitutional protection.
It also sets a precedent on how Indian Courts may interpret non-commercial, protest-based uses of trademarks, giving much-needed clarity on the scope of parody, satire, and fair use under Indian Trademark Law.
For law students, IPR practitioners, and constitutional scholars alike, this judgment is a compelling reminder of how the law must evolve to accommodate modern forms of activism, speech, and branding in the digital age.
Key Takeaways
Parody and criticism are legitimate defences against trademark infringement if there is no commercial intent.
Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act is not triggered without use in the course of trade.
The Indian judiciary is willing to protect non-commercial protest speech even against influential corporate entities.
Trademark law must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional rights, not in isolation.
