In case you’re not conversant with the names of some of the lesser known international conglomerates, TATA is one of the largest companies on the planet. The Tatas to which I refer in the title of this post are the members of the family who run the conglomerate, not a reference to an American bodacious colloquialism of anatomy.
Based in India, the conglomerate has operations in several industries including automotive and energy. Currently, the company’s steel division is engaged in the construction of a deep water port on the coast of India. According to DNA India, the port is said to be located less than 15 kilometers from the nesting area of the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtle. Now, from within the theme of what we discuss here on Telofski.com, that is to say irregular competition, you know what’s coming next. Yes. Enter Greenpeace.
Per the DNA India article, as part of Greenpeace India’s protest against the Tata construction activities, for which Tata says it has the necessary governmental clearances but which Greenpeace claims imperils an endangered species, Greenpeace India has promoted an online video game entitled “Turtle vs. Tata.” According to the article, in the video game, which apparently is similar to Pac-Man in its nature:
. . . the player is a turtle that has to eat as much healthy food as it can while avoiding the ‘Tata demons’ that threaten its home.
In response to this game, and Greenpeace’s promotion thereof, Tata has filed a trademark infringement and defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace. DNA India says that the Tata lawsuit, filed in Delhi High Court, claims:
The aim of the colorful and noisy video game is to help the yellow turtles eat as many little white dots as possible without running into Ratty (presumably after Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group), Matty, Natty or Tinku… The NGO has not only infringed the trade mark rights of the TATA but is also maligning the reputation of the company, thereby injuring the same in their profession.
Greenpeace has been using these sorts of anti-corporate protest tactics for many years. In fact, that NGO is quite well-known for this type of approach to anti-corporate protest. So, to see a legal challenge pop up after all these years is quite interesting, and especially so since it will take place in the courts of a developing nation. When I think of this case, and how it might play out, I am reminded of the 1990s “Mc Libel” trial where Mc Donald’s in the U.K. sued two British activists for defamation. After a long court case, and a whole lot of publicity, Mc Donald’s ultimately won the case in court, but, as many have argued, probably lost in the court of public opinion. The monetary damages charged to the losing defendants were relatively miniscule given the value of the plaintiff’s corporate reputation, and in fact were reduced upon appeal to a higher court. In both business and activist accounts of the trial, the term “pyrrhic victory” was often applied to the outcome of the Mc Libel case.
However, this Tata case may not produce results, either those of a legal or public opinion nature, close to those of the Mc Libel case. Per another DNA India, although not a legal decision, in preliminary procedures the Delhi High Court “suggested” that Greenpeace remove the Tata trademark from the game in question. Such a suggestion may give an indication as to which way the court will lean in it decision.
Push-back is needed against adversarial NGOs. Just as corporations sometimes go to far, so do NGOs. There needs to be a balance in the process of NGO/corporate engagements, and this lawsuit is just one way to attempt that balance which is all too often not sought. It’s not only the push-back against an NGO’s tactics that have been employed, unopposed, for years that makes this case so interesting, but it is also the venue in which the push-back is being made, that of a developing nation. The Mc Libel case was not, of course, in a developing country.
With the Tata case in a country where employment and wealth are not as plentiful as in other countries where Greenpeace takes on their corporate foes, will the legal system, and ultimately the court of public opinion, support this third-party interference with the economic process? Perhaps the court’s suggestion is a harbinger.
We shall see.
