TATA SONS LIMITED Vs. RAMA NERUSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in the present suit for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs such as damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. complain of infringement of the registered trademarksTATA & TISCO, by the defendants. They also seek decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the domain name.

(2.) THE suit contends that the first plaintiff was established in 1917 and is a principal investment holding company of the TATA Group of companies with a turnover of Rs.251543 crores as on 2007-2008. The certificate of incorporation of the first plaintiff has been produced as Ex.PW-1/2. It is stated that the TATA Group is ranked at the 6th position in the list of world.s 50 most innovative companies by a finance weekly, for the year 2008 and that the TATA brand has been ranked at the 57th position among the top 100 brands worldwide by Brand Finance. The plaintiffs rely on Ex.PW-1/3, PW-1/11, PW-1/12, PW-1/13, PW-1/15 and PW-1/16 as well as the certain orders of this Court to assert that its trademarks can be classified aswell known marks, within the meaning of Section 2 (i) (zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereafter referred to asthe Act). The plaintiff No.1.s website isTATA.COM; the same is supported by the documentary evidence in the form of PW-1/3. The second plaintiff (hereafter referred to as TISCO) is a part of the TATA Group, was incorporated in 1907 and is a large steel company with an existing annual crude steel capacity of 28 million tonnes, it claims to be sixth largest steel producing company in the world. The suit lists commendations and laudatory references in respect of TISCO and several awards received by it for the excellence of its products and services. The plaintiffs rely on several documents in this regard, i.e. Ex.PW-1/5 - Ex.PW-1/10. It is stated that the second plaintiff also has business activities within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) IT is alleged that TISCO learnt, in May, 2008 about the defendants. activities and that the latter were operating their business under the nameTISCO and domain name The print outs of the said website have been produced in the list of documents and exhibited as Ex.PW-2/5. It is alleged that the TATA.s distinctive trademark with a prominent stylizedT. in a circle device has also been exhibited prominently in the defendants. website. In support, the plaintiffs have produced a copy of the website as Ex.PW-2/6. It is stated that the use of the TATA mark and distinctive device with aT. in a circle is a blatant attempt to appropriate the plaintiffs. mark and a clear instance of infringement.