This article is written by Muskan Srivastava, LL.B. Final Year, MGKVP University, Varanasi during her internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords:
Trademark Law, Personality Rights, Ratan Tata, Passing Off, Digital Fraud, Celebrity Image, Delhi High Court Judgment
Abstract:
In the evolving landscape of trademark law and personality rights, the misuse of celebrity identity has become a growing concern. The Delhi High Court’s 2025 ruling in the Ratan Tata trademark case sets a major precedent for protecting the names and images of public figures under Indian law. This article explores how the misuse of Ratan Tata’s name on fraudulent platforms was addressed legally, highlighting key aspects of personality rights, landmark case laws, and the implications of this judgment in the digital age.
1. Introduction: Identity as Intellectual Property
The name of a public figure today is more than a label—it’s a brand. When that brand is misused, it’s not just about personal violation; it affects public trust. In Ratan Tata’s case, this misuse was not theoretical—it directly targeted innocent investors using fake digital platforms that falsely claimed his endorsement.
2. Personality Rights and Indian Trademark Law: A Quick Dive
Personality rights refer to the right of an individual to control the commercial use of their identity. While India doesn’t yet have a dedicated statute for personality rights, courts have interpreted protections through:
– Section 2(zb) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 – includes name in trademark definition.
– Section 9 & 11 – restricts registration if it causes confusion or exploits reputation.
– Common Law Principle of Passing Off – even unregistered names can be protected.
Relevant Cases:
– Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co. (2018): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14678789/
– Arun Jaitley Domain Case: https://www.barandbench.com/news/arun-jaitley-domain-name-case-delhi-high-court
– Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports (China): https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2016/06/article_0001.html
– Rihanna v. Topshop (UK): https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/31/rihanna-wins-lawsuit-topshop-tshirt
3. The Case: Ratan Tata v. Fake Investment Platforms (2025)
Ratan Tata moved the Delhi High Court after discovering that multiple digital platforms were using his name and image to promote fake investment schemes falsely claiming his approval.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
– His name is synonymous with public trust and corporate ethics.
– Using it for deceit violated Sections of Trademark Act and amounted to passing off.
– The platforms were profiting by misleading users and damaging Tata’s reputation.
Court’s Decision:
The Delhi HC ruled:
– Ratan Tata’s name is a recognized brand in itself.
– Misusing it amounts to cheating, both legally and morally.
– All fake platforms and apps were banned immediately.
– ISPs were directed to block these domains.
4. Legal Significance
This ruling is significant because:
1. Unregistered names can still be protected as trademarks if the reputation is established.
2. Passing off has been redefined to include digital impersonation and online fraud.
3. It creates a judicial roadmap for handling future identity thefts of public figures.
5. Technology, Law, and Identity: What’s Changing?
AI-generated content, deepfakes, and social media impersonation are new tools for old crimes. Legal frameworks must evolve. In India:
– No specific law on personality rights yet.
– Fake profiles and voice imitations often go unpunished due to legal gaps.
– Public figures like Ratan Tata are now seen as brand assets, making their identity part of economic value.
6. Conclusion: Rethinking Celebrity Protection in Law
The Ratan Tata judgment is a landmark not just for trademark law but for the evolving concept of digital personality rights. Here’s what it really means:
– Identity is not just personal—it’s economic capital.
– Trademark law now defends people, not just products.
– Without legal reform, identity theft will keep thriving.
– Public trust, once broken, can’t be easily restored—law must be ahead of technology.
7. References
Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co., 2018: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14678789/
Arun Jaitley Domain Case – Bar & Bench: https://www.barandbench.com/news/arun-jaitley-domain-name-case-delhi-high-court
Michael Jordan Case Summary – WIPO Report: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2016/06/article_0001.html
Rihanna v. Topshop – The Guardian Report: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/31/rihanna-wins-lawsuit-topshop-tshirt
