Delhi Court Grants Permanent Injunction to Protect Tata Brand and Ratan Tata’s Legacy from Fraudulent Misuse

Case Background:

The Plaintiffs Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Dr. Rajat Shrivastava and others associated with Delhi Today Group seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement of “TATA” and “TATA TRUSTS,” copyright infringement of the Tata logo, and the misuse of Ratan Tata’s name and photograph alleging the unauthorized use of their well-known trademarks for commercial purposes, personal and financial gain. Additionally, they claimed that the defendants engaged in passing off and misrepresentation by falsely associating their activities with Tata Trusts to mislead the public. The Plaintiffs further sought damages, rendition of accounts, and the delivery of infringing material, arguing that the defendants’ actions tarnished the goodwill of the Tata Group and violated intellectual property and personality rights.

Facts:

• In December 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants were falsely promoting an event titled “Ratan Tata National Icon Award 2024”, which was scheduled to take place on 10th December 2024 at Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi. The Defendants misrepresented that the event was endorsed by Tata Trusts and its former chairman, Late Ratan Tata. They also charged a nomination fee of ₹3,000 for Indian applicants and $100 for international applicants, misleading the public for financial gain.
• The Defendants had widely promoted the event on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and their website (www.delhitodaygroup.com), creating a false perception of association with Tata Trusts. The Plaintiffs presented screenshots of these misleading posts as evidence in court to substantiate their claims.
• When the Plaintiffs’ representatives visited Maharashtra Sadan, officials confirmed that no such event was scheduled, exposing the fraudulent nature of the advertisement. On 13th December 2024, the Plaintiffs issued a takedown notice to the Defendants, demanding the removal of the misleading content. While the Defendants did not respond, they removed some posts. However, as of 3rd February 2025, some infringing content remained active on their platforms.
• Despite receiving the takedown notice, in January 2025, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants had again begun promoting a new event, titled “Ratan Tata National Icon Award 2025” & “India Visionary Leaders’ Summit 2025”, scheduled for 10th February 2025 at:  Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi and Constitutional Club of India, New Delhi. Congruent to same chain of events of the previous instance, the event was falsely advertised as endorsed by Tata Trusts, with misleading social media promotions.
• The Tata Trusts issued a public clarification, denying any involvement with the event. Plaintiffs commented on the misleading posts, warning the public about the fraudulent claims, but the defendants deleted these comments, further indicating malicious intent. Then in the enquiry at Constitutional Club of India, Officials confirmed that the Defendant No. 1 had booked the venue but withheld further details.
• The Plaintiffs claimed the Defendants’ actions caused significant public confusion and tarnished the reputation of the Tata Group. That the defendants are misleading the public perception, several individuals, including awardees, believed that the awards were endorsed by Tata Trusts. One recipient publicly thanked Tata Trusts, assuming the honour was genuine. Additionally, there was a direct reputational damage to the plaintiff, as the unauthorized use of Tata’s trademarks and Ratan Tata’s name led people to mistakenly associate the event with Tata Group, creating potential financial and credibility risks for the plaintiffs. The fraudulent conduct of the defendants, despite multiple warnings, had become the core reason which led to legal action seeking a permanent injunction to prevent further unauthorized use of Tata’s name, trademarks, and goodwill.

Issues:

1. Whether the unauthorized use of “TATA” and “TATA TRUSTS” constituted an infringement under the Trademarks Act, 1999?
2. Whether the defendants misrepresented their event as being endorsed by the Tata Group?
3. Whether the use of Ratan Tata’s personal name and photograph without authorization violated his posthumous publicity rights?
4. Whether the defendants’ actions amounted to fraud by misleading the public into believing an association with Tata Trusts?
5. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies?

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiffs, Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., argued that the defendants engaged in trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, violation of personality rights, and fraudulent conduct.
• They contended that TATA and TATA TRUSTS are well-known trademarks, with Tata Group maintaining its reputation for over 150 years and Plaintiff No. 1 exclusively using TATA TRUSTS for over 50 years. The unauthorized use of these trademarks violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Section 29, which prohibits unauthorized use even in unrelated fields.
• The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants falsely advertised the “Ratan Tata National Icon Award 2024” and “2025”, misleading the public into believing that the events were endorsed by Tata Trusts. By charging nomination fees, the Defendants commercially exploited Tata’s goodwill, valued at $365 billion (₹30.6 trillion) as of March 2024, thereby tarnishing its reputation.
• Additionally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated Ratan Tata’s personality rights by using his name and photograph without consent. They emphasized that publicity rights survive posthumously, citing Martin Luther King Jr. v. American Heritage Products (1983), which established that a celebrity’s name and image remain inheritable and protected after death.
• The plaintiffs also highlighted the defendants’ fraudulent intent, pointing out that they collected nomination fees under false pretence, falsely associating the event with Tata Trusts.
• Furthermore, when the Plaintiffs publicly clarified their non-involvement, the defendants deleted their comments from social media, demonstrating malicious intent. Given these violations, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent further misuse and to protect Tata’s brand, goodwill, and legacy.
• In the support to substantiate the plaintiff cited Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 2660), Martin Luther King Jr. v. American Heritage Products, Inc. (1983, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit and cited the ICANN Domain Name Policy (WIPO UDRP Guidelines.

Defendant’s Arguments

The Defendant failed to provide any arguments in his defence and has failed to substantiate his statutory right to use the relevant mark.

Court’s Analysis & Judgement:

The court reaffirmed that “TATA” and “TATA TRUSTS” are well-known trademarks, legally protected from unauthorized use by third parties. Additionally, the court recognized a personal name as a protectable trademark, referencing Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2011), which established that a well-known personal name holds trademark significance. The Martin Luther King Jr. case (U.S.) was cited to uphold the principle that the right of publicity survives posthumously, meaning that Ratan Tata’s name and image remain legally protected even after his passing. The court ruled that the Defendants committed passing off and fraudulent misrepresentation by misleading the public into believing their event was associated with Tata Trusts, unfairly profiting from the Tata Group’s goodwill. The court granted a permanent injunction, strictly restraining the Defendants from using “TATA,” “TATA TRUSTS,” Ratan Tata’s name, or his photograph in any manner, whether for commercial, promotional, or misleading purposes. Recognizing the unauthorized and fraudulent use of Tata’s trademarks and identity, the court prohibited any future attempts by the Defendants to falsely associate themselves with the Tata Group. Additionally, the Defendants were required to submit an affidavit within two days, formally undertaking that they would not engage in any further unauthorized use of Tata’s name, trademarks, or image.

Conclusion:

In this case the court reaffirmed the right of publicity post-death, emphasizing that the legacy of a well-known personality retains a significant value, and its unauthorized use can diminish the goodwill and mislead the public.

It acknowledged that fraudulent activities, such as those committed by the defendants, will not only deceive individuals but also damage the reputation of ethical brands like Tata, which have built public trust over the decades. The defendants admitted their wrongdoing, removed the misleading posts, and cancelled the event, leading to a consent decree. To prevent future violations, the court’s injunction established a strong precedent against the misuse of public figures’ identities and well-known trademarks for personal or commercial gain.

This case serves as a landmark ruling on trademark protection, right of publicity, and fraudulent misrepresentation, reinforcing the need to safeguard well-known marks and personal names from unauthorized exploitation. By successfully defending its brand and legacy, Tata Group ensured that misuse of well-known trademarks is deterred, protecting the integrity of public figures and corporations from fraudulent commercial exploitation.