Is parody with a registered trademark infringement?

Not if the use is fair, bona fide, and clearly critical or satirical without confusing the public about endorsement or origin.

Does non-commercial protest help a defence?

Yes. Non-commercial, issue-focused use weighs against infringement and supports freedom of expression.

What is the key test in such cases?

Courts check if an average viewer would believe the trademark owner endorses the message. No confusion usually means no infringement.

Can courts still restrain protest uses?

Yes, when the use is misleading, exploitative, or amounts to passing-off, dilution, or unfair advantage.

What should students memorize?

Fair + Bona Fide + No Confusion = protected protest. Trademarks do not block honest criticism.

tata-sons-v-greenpeace-intl

Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International

Trademark Parody Fair & Bona Fide Use Delhi High Court 2011 ~6 min read

PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

/tata-sons-v-greenpeace-intl/

Quick Summary

Delhi High Court said that using a registered trademark for criticism or protest can be lawful. If the use is fair, bona fide, and clearly a parody, it is not infringement. Free speech interests matter.

CASE_TITLE: Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International (IA No. 9089/2010 in CS (OS) 1407/2010)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: trademark parody, fair use criticism, freedom of expression
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Delhi High Court, Turtle v Tata game, DPCL, environmental protest

```

Issues

Is Greenpeace’s use of the TATA name and logo a protected parody or a trademark infringement?

Rules

Fair & Bona Fide Use: Use of a registered mark for criticism, comment, or protest is not infringement when honest and proportionate.
No Likelihood of Confusion: If the audience will not think the trademark owner endorses the message, infringement is unlikely.
Free Speech Balance: Courts weigh trademark rights against freedom of expression.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Tata Sons v Greenpeace

DPCL, a Tata–L&T JV, received approvals to build and run a port at the Dhamra river mouth (Odisha).

Greenpeace opposed the project, citing risks to the sea turtle ecosystem and long-term environmental harm.

As protest, Greenpeace launched a Pac-Man–style game “Turtle v. TATA” using the “TATA” word and stylized “T in a circle”.

Tata Sons sued Greenpeace for trademark infringement over the game’s use of TATA marks and references like “Tata demons”.

Arguments

Appellant (Tata Sons)

Use of the TATA name/logo was unauthorized and damaging to brand reputation.
The game misused registered trademarks and could mislead viewers.
An injunction was needed to stop continued use.

Respondent (Greenpeace)

Use was parody and criticism—not commercial exploitation.
No likelihood of confusion; audiences would see it as protest speech.
Free speech protects fair, honest, and limited use of marks.

Judgment

Gavel and balance symbolizing Delhi High Court decision

The Delhi High Court (2011) held that using a registered mark for criticism or protest is not infringement when the use is fair and bona fide. The “Turtle v. TATA” game was a parody, unlikely to confuse consumers, and therefore protected expression.

Ratio

Trademark law protects source identity, not silence of critics. Fair, honest, non-commercial parody/critique that does not confuse the public stays outside infringement.

Why It Matters

Sets guidance for protest groups using marks in India.
Balances IP rights with free speech in public-interest campaigns.
Highlights the role of confusion analysis in parody cases.

Key Takeaways

Criticism and parody using a mark can be lawful if fair and bona fide.
Absence of consumer confusion is central.
Courts consider context, purpose, and proportionality of the use.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Parody, Not Passing-Off.”

Purpose: Is it criticism/protest, not commerce?
Perception: Would people think Tata endorses it?
Proportion: Is the use honest, fair, and limited?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is Greenpeace’s game using the TATA mark a protected parody or an infringement?

Rule

Fair, bona fide use of a registered mark for protest/criticism without causing confusion is not infringement.

Application

The game’s context, tone, and messaging showed criticism, not endorsement; viewers would not think Tata approved it.

Conclusion

Use was protected expression; no injunction for trademark infringement.

Glossary

Parody: Imitative use to comment or criticize; humorous or satirical.
Bona Fide Use: Honest, fair use without intent to exploit the mark commercially.
Likelihood of Confusion: Risk that consumers think the trademark owner endorses or is the source.