Trade Mark Parody- An analysis of Tata Sons v. Greenpeace

Trade Mark Parody is a defense to Trade Mark infringement. There should be no likelihood of confusion between the original host work and the parody work, as the parody will not be taken in a serious manner. It must be cleverly portrayed so as to show itself as a humorous take on the original work.

In the case, Tata Sons v Greenpeace, Tata had initiated an action for infringement of their Tata logo. Further, they alleged defamation and disparagement against Greenpeace claiming total damages amounting to $2.17 million. Greenpeace released a game which was formed on the lines of the popular Pacman game wherein it depicted turtles being chased by the Tata logo. The game was based on the intent to raise awareness on the alleged adverse impact of the Dharma Port Project which was a joint venture project between Tata Sons and L & T, on Olive Ridley turtles. The port is being developed by the two companies on a build-own-operate-share-transfer basis. Greenpeace, along with other environmental groups have opposed the port’s construction since the port is in an ecologically sensitive area which is home to Olive Ridley turtles.  Preventing this species of turtles from being endangered was the need of the hour, and hence, the concept of the game came up. The game allegedly also used the “TATA” logo mark with the stylized version of its “T within a circle” device, but also contains references to “Tata demons”.

Now, was this a parody  or an infringement of Tata’s intellectual property?

Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 refers to infringement of a registered trademark by use of the mark without the consent of the registered proprietor with undue cause and in the course of trade.

Essentially, it means that the use of a Trade Mark for criticism, fair use and parody is allowed if it is with due cause and not in the same course of trade.

Arguments on behalf of Tata:

  • The attorneys on behalf of Tata argued that since their Trade Mark was unauthorizedly used, it amounted to infringement. Since the stylized version of its logo made it distinctive, the infringement could harm its repute and business.
  • Further, Tata states that they received all the necessary clearances from government authorities. They also stated that the Dharma port has been designed to be an eco-friendly port and that all precautions have being taken to reduce any drastic impact on the endangered turtles. In their submissions, the following quote from an August 2010 report by the Central Empowered Committee was cited which was constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor compliance with its orders concerning forests and wildlife: “Details of the monitoring reports do not so far indicate any adverse impact of the Dharma Port Project on the wild life and its habitats including the Olive Ridley turtles.”
  • Tata further submitted that they were the sole targets of this advertisement of Greenpeace, although it was a joint venture. They saw it as an attempt to intentionally ruin its business and damage its reputation by libel. The title of the game itself is ‘Turtle v. Tata’ which plainly pinpoints the company in a battle against turtles. Additionally, with each visitor, the Greenpeace website’s value and its capacity to attract donations increased, thanks to Tata’s Trade Mark.

Arguments on behalf of Greenpeace:

  • Greenpeace argued that Tata’s suit for interim injunction was more of an alleged defamation suit than infringement of trademarks.
  • Further, dilution or tarnishing a Trade Mark could occur only in course of trade, but Tata had not mentioned anything to substantiate on this ground.
  • Greenpeace in reply stated that Tata was the main beneficiary of this venture, since L & T was pretty much solely the constructor of the port.
  • Greenpeace contented that the juxtaposition of the word ‘Demons’ with the word ‘Tata’, and indeed with reference to the project itself, is merely hyperbole. They added that the word demons had been an “overtly emphatic expression” which was used to make a strong impression, and that as such it was not defamatory.

Greenpeace cited the case of Laugh it off Promotions v Freedom of Expression Institute. This judgment vacated an earlier injunction that had been granted to a South African brewer preventing an individual from selling T-shirts bearing parodied images of its brands.

The Delhi High Court followed precedent set in 1891 in Bonnard v Perryman. This case was an appeal against an interim injunction that had been granted to block the publication of an allegedly libellous newspaper article. The writer vehemently defended the accuracy of the article, and as a result, the court decided that granting an injunction before it had been determined whether the article was libellous was premature.

Using the “Bonnard rule”, as it came to be known, Justice Bhat said that Tata’s allegations of defamation can only be tested in a trial. Granting an injunction at this early stage would “freeze the entire public debate on the effect of the port project on the Olive Ridley turtles’ habitat” and “would most certainly be contrary to established principles.” He further stated that whether such information is published on the internet or in any other media does not affect the process of determining whether it is libellous. The medium used for publication would come into consideration only at the time of assessing the value of any damages.

Justice Ravindra Bhat in his judgment on January 28, 2011 dismissed Tata’s claim for an interim injunction. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the use of the mark by Greenpeace was not in the course of trade, since it was not in the same line of business as Tata. Further, the usage of the Mark by Greenpeace was merely a promotional activity to draw consumer and public interest to its activity, hence it was merely denominative in nature. Thus, it amounted to fair use in Trade Mark law.

Tata has gone to appeal before a division bench of Delhi High Court, as of now. It was an interesting decision as parody in Indian Law has not been a widely known principle.

To successfully create a defense against alleged infringement, Trade Mark parody must be cleverly portrayed. The original host work must be famous and known to a particular target audience and the parody must prima facie remind of the original host work. The parody must not be an exact remake of the original host work, but it should conjure a new, original work.  If the parody calls the original to mind, but doesn’t adequately distinguish it, the result is trademark infringement. No amount of wit or humor will save a parody which is likely to cause confusion.

First, a parody must be clever enough or witty enough so that customers will not assume the original trademark owner is connected with or approving of the parody. In cases where a likelihood of confusion is demonstrated, the defense of parody is defeated. Secondly, a parody must be clever enough to avoid dilution of “famous” marks.

Such a parody is allowed and is not an infringement of trademark. This interesting legal issue has not yet arisen in the Indian context with as much flavour as it has in the United States.

About the Author: Ms. Madhuri Iyer, Trade Mark Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at:

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw .

Leave a Reply



  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010