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.
