Case Law Details
Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Hakunamatata Tata Founders (Delhi High Court)
The plaintiff is a company incorporated in India. Though the plaint avers that documents showing involvement of the plaintiff, its subsidiaries and group companies in financial services including crypto currency, have been filed with the plaint, the documents with the plaint do not indicate that the plaintiff is itself dealing in crypto currency under any brand name or trade mark. They do indicate, however, that the plaintiff is, under its well-known brand name/trademark ‘TATA’, providing a platform for trading in crypto currency.
Defendants 1 and 2 are situated in the U.K. and the U.S. respectively. They deal in crypto currency, under the name “TATA coin/$TATA”. None of the defendants has any outlets in India, and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are carrying out any overt manufacturing or marketing activities within India.
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using the trademark “TATA”, as part of the name under which their crypto currency is made available to the public, or as part of their corporate name or domain name.
Admittedly, the defendants’ mark “TATA coin/$TATA” is not registered in India. The first question that arises for consideration is, therefore, whether the plaintiff can seek an injunction against the defendants’ mark, the defendants being located outside the sovereign borders of India and, therefore, statutorily outside the reach of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
