Tata vs. Hakunamatata: High Court Allows Conglomerate Appeal Against Cryptocurrency – The Indian Express | Jewelry Dukan

Allows Tata Sons Private Limited to appeal against a UK and US based company that sells and exchanges cryptocurrency called “TATA” coin

The court ruled on the appeal and ordered the complaint to be heard before the single judge to give the defendants a notice of the applicant’s request for interim relief on September 26 (Representative File Photo).

The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed an appeal by Tata Sons Private Limited against a UK and US-based company found to be selling and trading cryptocurrency called “TATA” and issued an injunction against the defendants because of their use of the registered trademark “TATA” for business purposes.

A divisional chamber of Judge Mukta Gupta and Judge Anil Kumar Ohri overturned the contested order, issued by a single judge on October 26, 2021, noting that the complainant and its group companies have a ubiquitous presence in diverse businesses – automobiles, telecoms , agriculture, hospitality, energy, defence, heavy industry, retail – and that “TATAs are considered ubiquitous in all businesses”.

“At this time, we have no reason to question the Complainant’s right to protect its intellectual property against a very obvious instance of infringement, intentional or otherwise, by the Respondent. As mentioned above, the people behind the website are… people of Pakistani origin in the UK. Their awareness of the “TATA” brand cannot be ruled out, which makes their motive appear suspicious. The way the trademark ‘TATA’ was canceled and adopted as is without even attempting to obfuscate it with a prefix or suffix to claim distinctiveness seems unscrupulous. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that Respondent No. 1 may have attempted to deceive the public by selling inferior and dubious products on behalf of TATAs.”

However, with respect to the domain name http://www.hakunamatata.finance, the court ruled that there was no prima facie ground for the applicant to agree that it was infringing its “TATA” trademark. The court found that Hakunamatata is a generic word and the word “TATA” is fully fused into it; it caused no deception or confusion; and there was only partial phonetic overlap with the word “TATA” in Hakunamatata.

The single judge had examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction at the threshold himself and did not agree with the applicant that courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction over respondents registered and resident abroad.

The court ruled that the complainants had good prima facie evidence to seek an injunction in relation to the Respondent’s website http://www.tatabonus.com, crypto products named $TATA, or other products sold on the website , http://www.hakunamatata.finance, under the name TATA, in order to avoid any confusion likely to be caused among the Indian public, who could be fooled into believing that the website and products in question of respondents are sold on TATA Group’s own website or are affiliated with TATA Group.

The court allowed the appeal, noting that failure to grant an injunction could “damage irreparably the goodwill of the complainant’s brand” and that any questionable or substandard products sold through the respondent’s website could seriously damage its credibility.

The court ruled on the appeal and ordered the complaint to be heard before the single judge to issue a notice to defendants on September 26, 2022 of the appellant’s request for injunctive relief.

Leave a Comment