Delhi High Court Bars Unauthorized Use of Ratan Tata Award
In a significant ruling on Friday, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction against Rajat Srivastava, prohibiting the unauthorized use of logos, images, and the name of Ratan Tata and Tata Trusts. The court acknowledged that Tata is a well-known trademark and that the late Ratan Tata is a prominent figure deserving of name protection.
Court’s Decision
Justice Mini Pushkarna’s bench was hearing a lawsuit filed by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and Tata Sons Pvt Ltd. The lawsuit targeted Rajat Srivastava, who had been planning to organize an award ceremony named the “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court ruled that the unauthorized use of Ratan Tata’s name and Tata Trusts’ logo was misleading and violated the plaintiffs’ rights.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit alleged that despite being notified, the defendants continued to advertise and publicize an unauthorized event and award, falsely claiming support and association with the Tata Trusts and its former Chairman, the late Ratan N. Tata. The plaintiffs argued that such unauthorized use could mislead the public and tarnish the reputation of the Tata brand.
Defendants’ Compliance
During the proceedings, the defendants agreed to cancel the awards event and refrain from using Ratan Tata’s name. The court, taking note of this submission, sought an undertaking from the defendants regarding compliance and scheduled a follow-up hearing for February 12.
Plaintiffs’ Representation
The plaintiffs, Tata, were represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Nayar. The lawsuit was filed through the law firm Anand and Anand, with representation by Pravin Anand and Achuthan Sreekumar.
Investigation of Unauthorized Events
According to the suit, upon learning about the unauthorized and misleading events scheduled for February 10, 2025, at the Constitutional Club of India and Maharashtra Sadan, New Delhi, the plaintiffs sent a representative to verify the defendants’ claims.
When the representative inquired at Maharashtra Sadan, they were informed that no such event was known to them and that the posts using their institution’s name were unauthorized and surprising. Conversely, at the Constitutional Club of India, the representative was told that there was a booking under Defendant Rajat Srivastava’s name, but the officials did not provide any additional details about the booking or event.
Conclusion
This ruling by the Delhi High Court underscores the importance of protecting well-known trademarks and the reputations of prominent figures. The court’s decision sends a clear message that unauthorized use of such names and logos will not be tolerated. As the case moves forward, the scheduled follow-up hearing on February 12 will determine further compliance and actions by the defendants.