Delhi High Court restrained two US and UK-based companies from using the trademark, TATA

Case: Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders and Ors
Bench: A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Manoj Kumar Ohri 

The Delhi High Court restrained two US and UK-based companies dealing in cryptocurrencies from using the trademark, TATA. The bench observed that in the public consciousness, the name TATA stands only for the TATA group of companies, whose preeminence and popularity are unquestionable.

According to the Court, the two companies -- Hakunamatata TATA Founders and Tata Bonus -- engaged in the sale of crypto coins, used the trademark TATA as it is, without even attempting to disguise it with a prefix or suffix to claim distinctiveness and, as such, their conduct was unethical.

The company appealed a single-judge decision not to allow both companies to use the trademark together. However, the judge did not dismiss the suit. The judge said he could not pass an injunction order as the operation of the Trademarks Act and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is limited to India.

The division bench held that once the single judge could ignore his self-doubts about the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, there was no reason he should continue to doubt his authority in deciding the application for an ad-interim injunction and rejecting it outright and conclusively.

The Court further noted that the single-judge could have awaited the respondents’ response to the suit and application after notice. Still, he opted to dismiss the application instead.

The divisional bench said that courts could grant an interim injunction, pending the final determination of the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which often is a mixed question of law and facts, after trial.

It, therefore, ordered the two companies against using TATA’s trademark.