In response to the ongoing “Turtle vs. Tata” controversy, about which I have written several articles, Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace International, today published an article on The Huffington Post. Entitled “Tsk Tsk TATA – Rise Above SLAPP Suits,” Mr. Naidoo responded to the lawsuit filed by Tata Industries against Greenpeace.
The overview of this case is, briefly, that Tata Industries is suing Greenpeace for the alleged misuse of the Tata trademark, and for defamation of character, in connection with a video game that Greenpeace produced to protest Tata’s involvement in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace claims, is too close to the nesting area of an endangered turtle species. According to DNA India, allegedly the video game 1) portrays the chairman of Tata as a less than savory character, 2) uses the Tata trademark, and 3) misrepresents the characters of India’s top grossing film, Sholay. You may read more details by reviewing my other articles on this topic.
In today’s Huffington Post article, Mr. Naidoo characterizes the Tata lawsuit as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) and an effort by Tata to “shrink the democratic space” in a “David vs. Goliath” battle. I wasn’t surprised to see Mr. Naidoo say this. Through my experiences of watching Greenpeace, I’ve learned that such responses are pretty much SOP (standard operating procedure) for them and part of the general media strategy of this organization which, to me, is really more of a media machine than an activist group. Such responses are made often when there is any form of “counter-protest” to or push-back against Greenpeace.
As a result of Greenpeace India’s “Turtle vs. Tata” video game, it now looks like Greenpeace is going to have more than one lawsuit on its hands. The first lawsuit I discussed in my recent posts “Tatas Push Back” and “More Thoughts About Tatas,” where I wrote about how Greenpeace India has been sued in an Indian court over charges of trademark infringement and libel.
Briefly, Greenpeace India created a video game satirizing the owners of Tata Industries, which is involved in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace contends, is too close to a turtle nesting area, so the video game was created to put political pressure on Tata. Tata, which is reported to have all necessary government permits for the construction project, was not amused by the video game and decided to file suit against the NGO. For more details on the case, please review the two articles linked above.
Now there might be a second lawsuit.
In a DNA India article from yesterday, it was reported that the producers of India’s highest grossing film, Sholay, will take legal action against Greenpeace India over its “Turtle vs. Tata” video game. Apparently, the video game, in its depiction of the Tatas, also contained suggestions of or allusions to the characters depicted in Sholay. The producers’ complaints will be gross trademark violation and a wrongful use of the characters from the film. From DNA India:
Greenpeace’s animation is a violation of trademark copyright and underlying rights. They have . . . associated Sholay and all its characters in negative light. We, the owners of the characters, do not support Greenpeace’s views.
It is very irresponsible for an NGO to violate intellectual property rights of India’s most famous film and tarnish the image of our legendary characters.
- Sascha Sippy, chairman, Sholay Media and Entertainment
As I said in my earlier articles, it will be interesting to see how this plays out because the nature of this case differs significantly from similar legal challenges to activists in other nations.
Stay “tuned” to Telofski.com.
Last Thursday I wrote about the case of Tata Industries suing Greenpeace for defamation. As I said toward the end of that article, it will be interesting to see how this case, brought by the Tatas, plays out because it is being adjudicated in a developing country. In this respect, this case differs from previous cases of its type, the 1990s Mc Libel trial in Britain, in particular. Since writing that post, I’ve had further thoughts about how this suit may differ from others of its genre. Foremost among these thoughts is that the key difference between this suit and other corporation vs. activist suits is that with this suit the claims of the defendant (Greenpeace) are limited and specific whereas in other cases the defendants’ claims were more general and widely arrayed. And that difference may spell defeat for Greenpeace. Let me explain.
As you know from reading my previous article, “Tatas Push Back,” the Tatas have filed a suit against Greenpeace in Delhi High Court. Per DNA India, the suit was filed in response to an online video game promoted by Greenpeace. The online video game is called “Turtle vs. Tata” and was designed as part of the NGO’s protest against Tata’s participation in the construction of a deep water port in India; a port which is reported to be located about 15 kilometers from the nesting area of an endangered sea turtle species. Thus comes the involvement from Greenpeace. The suit claims that the video game infringes on the company’s trademark. The suit also claims that the game maligns the reputation of the company through its alleged representation of the Tata company chairman as a villain. And the suit states that, regarding the sea turtle and the construction in the vicinity of the turtles’ nesting area, the company has obtained the proper construction clearances from the government. This case is very focused, unlike the Mc Libel trial which many corporations may be keeping in mind as they contemplate suits against activists.
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
Continue reading Tatas Push Back
I was just listening to the Jackson Browne song “Lives in the Balance” while working on some writing about anti-corporatism. How ironic that that song came on the radio at that particular time. The notion of “Who’s really at fault here?,” popped into my mind upon hearing the anti-corporate lyrics:
“They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are.”
Who’s really at fault here?
The salesmen (and women, of course) in the “shadows” or the customer?
Anti-corporatism is a necessary condition to the success of anti-corporate digital activism. The reason is self-evident. And last Friday, April 16, 2010, the U.S. federal government added some heat to the flames of anti-corporatism.
Whether or not the fraud charges filed by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) against Goldman Sachs have any merit is immaterial to the issue I’m presenting here. Because the issue I’m presenting here is not the guilt or innocence of that corporation in the matter about to be adjudicated or, more likely, negotiated. The issue that I’m presenting here is that of government-generated anti-corporatism, designed for political reasons.
The announcement of this charge, at this time, can appear to be a politically-motivated and opportunistic tactic. The SEC has, according to the Wall Street Journal, been working on this case for 18 months and just now, days before the U.S. Senate takes up debate on a financial reform bill, decides to announce its charges against Goldman Sachs. This timing seems just a little too coincidental to me.
But coincidental or not, in passing any financial reform, the government must attempt to feed the flames of anti-corporatism. Not doing so would not help their case to pass such legislation. And with a recent Pew Research Center survey saying that only 22% of Americans trust their federal government, the people on Capitol Hill will need any help they can get in progressing their less-than-business-friendly agendas.
Announcing the Goldman Sachs charges at any time will certainly contribute to anti-corporate sentiment. But by doing so now, in conjunction with the opening of a legislative debate on financial reform, this action would seem to be more effective in generating anti-corporate sentiment than waiting for a time when Congress is debating, say, some overarching foreign policy issue, unrelated to business.
What does this mean for corporations in general? Well, many things. But from the perspective of this blog, that of analyzing “irregular competitors,” it means that currently corporations will need to be even more on guard for instances of digital activism against their brands and company. NGOs and activists will recognize that now is a time of “hotter than normal” anti-corporatism. They may see this current event as an “opportunity” and adjust plans for their future online protests accordingly; that is to say, they may perform these online protests sooner than later.
Just another “fringe benefit” from the folks in the District of Columbia.
|
|
