MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT

1. The plaintiff claims a decree for permanent injunction, and a decree for damages to the extent of 10 crores, against the defendants. This order will dispose of the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction.

2. The suit avers that the plaintiff is India’s oldest and largest private sector employer, consisting of over 100 major operating companies, 28 of which are public limited and employing over 3,63,000 people. For the fiscal year 2008-09, Plaintiff’s annual revenues exceed US $70 billion of the nearly 65% was generated outside India and the balance 35% within India. The revenue generated within India was equivalent to 2.1% of India’s Gross Domestic Products at Current market price, and the exports per USD 6.3 billion, equivalent to 3.4% of India’s exports. The plaintiff has over 3.5 million shareholders and its assets are valued at US $ 51.7 billion. It is contended that TATA companies have laid the foundation in the industrial core sectors, pioneering the iron & steel, textiles, power, chemicals, hotels and automobile industries in India, and that the TATA brand encompasses diverse businesses and services such as computers and computer software, electronics, telecommunications, financial services, mutual funds, tea and the publishing. It is further stated that the TATA group was ranked 13 in the list of World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies by Business Week, for the year 2009. Further, the TATA brand has the also been ranked 65 among top 100 brands worldwide, listed by Brand Finance, (an independent company focused on the management and valuation of brands) Global 500 Report the March 2010. Further, for the year 2009, the Plaintiff was ranked as the world’s 11 most reputed company according to a study complied by United States based Reputation Institute. Documents pertaining to the “well-known” status, reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff company have been filed in the present proceedings.

3. It is stated that the plaintiff has been continuously and consistently using the trademark and trade name TATA, which is a rare and distinctive patronymic name possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word, for its own business activities and those of companies promoted by it. The use of the trademark and name TATA by the plaintiffs’ predecessors in business dates back to 1868. The plaintiff contends that TATA has acquired an excellent reputation from the beginning and down the decades, it has consistently been associated with, and denotes the conglomeration of companies forming the TATA Group, colloquially also referred to as the House of TATA, which are known for high quality of products manufactured and or services rendered under the trademark /name TATA. The house of TATA consists of over 100 companies which use TATA as a key and essential part of their corporate name. The plaintiff refers to several overseas TATA companies, philanthropic bodies and autonomous units. The plaintiff claims proprietorship of the TATA trademark due to prior adoption, long continuous and extensive use and advertising, and the consequent reputation accruing to it. The plaintiff, as proprietor of the TATA mark enjoys exclusive rights.

4. In addition to the common law rights that have accrued to the plaintiff by virtue of the aforesaid facts, it is also the registered proprietor of several TATA formative trademarks in relation to various goods across various classes of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade Marks, Rules, 2002. A tabulated list of the plaintiff’s trademark registrations is filed along with representative copies of a few trademark registration certificates. By virtue of the said registrations, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the trademark TATA in relation to the goods covered there under and to obtain relief in respect of the infringement of the registered trademarks. The Plaintiff also owns trademark registrations for the word TATA in over 50 countries besides India. Copie