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
