IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Or…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Trade Marks Act, 1999 (well-known mark; infringement)
Brief facts
Tata Sons sued over crypto tokens branded 'TATA Coin/$TATA' promoted by the respondents. On 26 October 2021 a Single Judge (C. Hari Shankar, J.) declined interim relief. Tata Sons appealed.
Issues before the Court
Whether interim relief should be granted against the use of TATA for crypto assets.
Court's findings
The Division Bench interfered with the Single Judge's refusal to the extent of directing that TATA-branded crypto assets be delisted, while holding that certain other use by respondent no. 1 was not prohibited at that stage.
Decision
Respondent no. 4 directed to delist TATA Coin/$TATA and any other crypto assets bearing the mark TATA or a deceptively similar mark from its networks and platforms, including Binance Smart Chain; suit listed before the Single Judge.
Subsequent history: This Division Bench decision modifies the Single Judge's order of 26 October 2021 refusing interim relief.
Key legal principle / ratio
A well-known mark such as TATA may be protected at the interim stage against its use for crypto assets, including by directing platform operators to delist tokens bearing the mark.
Important paragraph references
Paras 30-32: directions.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Crypto Assets Delisting Interim Injunction Online Platforms TATA Well-known Trade Mark
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order