NEW DELHI: Acknowledging that Ratan Tata is a well-known figure whose trademark deserves protection, the Delhi high court has restrained a third party from unauthorised use of the late industrialist’s name.
Dealing with a suit filed by the Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust, the High Court observed last week that it is “manifest that the name of Late Shri Ratan Tata is a well-known personal name/mark, which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party” and restrained a journalist from using the name “Ratan Tata National Icon Award” or using “Tata” and “Tata Trusts” trademarks for an event organised by him.
Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after one Rajat Srivastava, founder of an outlet called Delhi Today Group, agreed not to use Ratan Tata’s name and refrain from proceeding with the award event under Ratan Tata’s name.
The High Court observed that TATA has already been declared a well-known mark while the late Ratan Tata, who was its chairman, “is a well-known figure and his name as such is liable to be protected and cannot be used by any third party without any consent or authorisation from the plaintiffs”.
It asked Srivastava to give an undertaking towards the same and pointed out that his actions clearly show he intentionally put up posts which wrongly claim association with the plaintiff and misuse his name by unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs’ registered marks.
In its prima facie observations, the High Court said Srivastava’s actions are in bad faith and “egregious infringement of plaintiffs’ statutory and legal rights, in order to have a free ride on the tremendous goodwill of the plaintiffs and that of the late Ratan Tata, with a view to benefitting from and gaining publicity out of the late Mr Tata’s distinct and widely regarded personality and public persona”.
In the suit, the company and the trust have also sought damages of over Rs 2 crore for allegedly causing harm to their reputation and goodwill. The High Court also said the defendant could not use the logo and pictures related to Ratan Tata and Tata Trusts.
According to the suit, the defendant, despite being notified, chose to continue to advertise and publicise an unauthorised event and award, falsely claiming support by and association with Tata Trusts and its former chairman.