SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

The plaintiffs, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, including Dr. Rajat Shrivastava and individuals associated with the Delhi Today Group, for infringement of the trademarks “TATA” and “TATA TRUSTS”, copyright infringement of the TATA logo, and unauthorized use of Mr. Ratan Tata’s name and image. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants exploited their registered trademarks for commercial, personal, and financial gain by publishing material that falsely suggested a connection with Tata Trusts, thereby engaging in passing off, misrepresentation, and misuse of personality rights. They also sought damages, accounting of profits, and an injunction against the continued use of infringing content.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiffs discovered that the defendants were organizing a fraudulent event titled “The Ratan Tata National Icon Award 2024” on December 10, 2024, at Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi, and were charging ₹3,000 for domestic and USD 100 for international nominations. The event was falsely marketed as being associated with Mr. Ratan Tata, Tata Group, and Tata Trusts through various digital platforms including the defendants’ website, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Upon inquiry, the plaintiffs’ representatives found no such event scheduled at Maharashtra Sadan. A takedown notice was issued to the defendants on December 13, 2024, demanding the removal of infringing content including unauthorized use of the Tata name, logo, and Ratan Tata’s image. While some posts were removed, infringing material remained online as of February 3, 2025.

In late January 2025, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants were again promoting an event titled “Ratan Tata National Icon Award 2025” and “India Visionary Leaders Summit 2025” scheduled for February 10, 2025, at The Constitutional Club of India and Maharashtra Sadan. False promotional posts were again uploaded, despite the plaintiffs having earlier denied association and issued public clarifications. The defendants took down the plaintiffs’ clarifying comments from social media, reinforcing their intent to mislead.

Officials from the Constitutional Club confirmed that Defendant No. 1 had booked the venue but did not disclose further details.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants’ actions caused public confusion, leading many—including award recipients—to believe the events were endorsed by Tata Trusts. One recipient even publicly thanked Tata Trusts. This misuse posed a serious reputational and financial threat to the plaintiffs and warranted immediate legal redress to prevent further misuse.

LEGAL ISSUES

Trademark Infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, through unauthorized use of registered marks and logo.

Infringement of Personality Rights by exploiting Mr. Ratan Tata’s name and image without consent.

Damage to Reputation and Goodwill through false claims of endorsement, constituting misrepresentation and passing off.

Violation of Consumer Protection Act through deceptive practices, such as charging nomination fees under false pretenses.

PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS

The plaintiffs emphasized that “TATA” is a 150-year-old brand synonymous with integrity and excellence. They argued that the defendants, led by Rajat Srivastava, misused their brand and Mr. Ratan Tata’s name to falsely advertise events, extract nomination fees, and mislead the public.

Despite receiving a takedown notice, the defendants continued promotion, thereby committing trademark infringement, passing off, fraud, and infringement of personality rights. The plaintiffs cited:

WIPO and ICANN Domain Name Policies;

Martin Luther King Jr. v. American Heritage Products, Inc. (1983, 11th Cir.); and

Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 2660).

They contended that the defendants acted with malice by deleting clarifications from social media and knowingly misleading the public.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

The defendants’ counsel informed the court that the event had been cancelled and that infringing content was removed. They expressed that there was no intent to harm Tata’s reputation and conveyed willingness to comply with any court directions to resolve the matter.

COURT’S FINDINGS & JUDGMENT

Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over a Single Bench, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the unauthorized use of a personal name—especially a reputed one like Mr. Ratan Tata’s—constituted bad faith and trademark infringement. The Court noted that the defendants exploited the goodwill associated with Tata to deceive the public into paying nomination fees under a false pretense.

The fact that the defendants took down posts and cancelled the event did not absolve them. The Court issued a permanent injunction restraining them from using the Tata logo, Ratan Tata’s name, or photograph for any commercial or promotional purposes.

The plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs in exchange for a written affidavit by the defendants undertaking not to misuse the Tata name or marks in the future. The suit was decreed accordingly under paragraphs 79(a), (b), and (c) of the plaint.

The case underscores that the unauthorized use of a renowned individual’s name and likeness can cause serious reputational damage and mislead the public. The judgment affirmed the right of publicity, even posthumously, and clarified that famous personalities and brands are entitled to heightened legal protection. The injunction issued against the defendants sets a strong precedent for safeguarding famous trademarks and personality rights, protecting the interests of reputable organizations and preventing consumer deception.

Author:– Alok Kumar Pandey , in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.