The Delhi High Court has ruled that industrialist Ratan Tata’s name is a well-known personal name and trademark, requiring protection against unauthorized use by third parties.

The Court restrained journalist Dr. Rajat Srivastava from using Ratan Tata’s name, photograph, or the TATA trademark for any purpose, including hosting an award event.

The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order in favor of Ratan Tata Trust, which had filed a suit alleging that Srivastava was misusing Ratan Tata’s name to organize an event titled “THE RATAN TATA NATIONAL ICON AWARD 2024” at Maharashtra Sadan.

The suit claimed that Srivastava falsely associated the event with Tata Trusts, Tata Group, and Ratan Tata, while also charging a nomination fee.

Court's Findings

The Court observed that Ratan Tata’s name has gained a distinctive identity beyond being a personal name, and its misuse for fraudulent purposes was a clear case of bad faith and trademark infringement.

“It is evident that the defendant was exploiting Ratan Tata’s well-known name and goodwill to mislead the public into paying nomination fees for an event they otherwise would not have participated in,” the Court noted.

Emphasizing that the TATA trademark has already been declared well-known, the Court held that Ratan Tata’s name cannot be used by any third party without authorization or consent. "This Court notes that TATA has already been declared as a well-known mark. Further, late Mr. Ratan Tata, who was the Chairman of the plaintiff no. 2, is a well-known figure and his name as such is liable to be protected and cannot be used by any third party without any consent or authorization, from the plaintiffs," the Single Bench said.

Final Order

As Srivastava’s Counsel informed the Court that the event had been canceled and the listing removed, the Court permanently restrained him from using the TATA trademark, Ratan Tata’s name, or his photograph for any purpose.

"Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are satisfied with the statement made by learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1 and 2. They submit that decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs shall give up their prayer for costs and damages. However, they submit that defendant nos. 1 and 2 be directed to file an affidavit with respect to their undertaking that they shall not use the mark TATA or TATA Trust unauthorisedly, or deal with the marks of the plaintiffs, including, the name and photograph of late Mr. Ratan Tata in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of para 79 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. Let decree sheet be drawn up," the Court said.

Cause Title: Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr. v Dr. Rajat Shrivastava & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2025: DHC: 793]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, Advocates Pravin Anand, Achuthan Sreekumar, Swastik Bisarya, Saurabh Seth

Respondent: Advocate Maitreya

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Mini PushkarnaRatan TataWell known trademark

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.