Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International

A landmark decision balancing trademark rights with freedom of speech and criticism in the digital age.

Summary

This case addressed the tension between trademark protection and the right to free expression. Tata Sons, one of India’s most respected business conglomerates, sued Greenpeace International for using the “TATA” trademark and logo in an online game and campaign criticizing Tata’s involvement in a port project near the Olive Ridley turtles’ habitat. Tata alleged trademark infringement and dilution. Greenpeace defended its actions as non-commercial, political criticism. The Delhi High Court was required to decide whether critical or parody use of a trademark on the internet amounts to infringement.

Facts of the Case

Greenpeace launched an online game titled “Turtle vs Tata,” where the Tata logo appeared in connection with environmental criticism of Tata’s port project. Tata Sons argued that this use tarnished its brand and misused its registered trademark without permission. It sought an injunction to restrain Greenpeace from using the mark. Greenpeace contended that the use was purely for awareness and protest, not for commercial gain, and fell within the scope of free speech.

Findings / Reasoning

The Delhi High Court held that trademark law cannot be used as a tool to silence criticism or suppress public debate. The Court observed that Greenpeace’s use of the Tata mark was not commercial exploitation but part of an environmental campaign. There was no likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of goods or services. The Court emphasized that parody, criticism, and commentary are legitimate forms of expression, especially when they address matters of public interest.

Suggestions / Observations

The judgment cautions trademark owners against over-enforcement that could infringe constitutional freedoms. While trademarks deserve protection, they cannot override democratic values like free speech. Activists and critics, however, must ensure that their use is honest, non-commercial, and clearly critical rather than misleading.

Judgment & Date

The Delhi High Court refused to grant an injunction in favour of Tata Sons and upheld Greenpeace’s right to use the trademark for non-commercial criticism.

Judgment Date : 28 January 2011