Who would have thought that the beloved game of Pac-Man, which often stirs up ideas of nostalgia, would land Greenpeace in a Rs.10 crore ($2.1 million) defamation and trademark infringement suit?

Last month Greenpeace devised an innovative and cheeky method to engage its supporters in a participatory campaign against Tata Steel’s promoted Dharma Port Project. The deep-sea port is being set up along with L&T at Bhadrak in Orissa. The location of the port project is only 15 kilometres from the nesting sites of the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtle, which is the smallest extant sea turtle in the world.

Tata in 1999 had obtained environmental clearance and the company maintains that it has not violated any provisions of the Forest Conservation Act. At the same time, Greenpeace has been adamant in its demand to conduct an independent environmental study of the region, to find out the repercussions of dredging in the area and the effects on the rich bio-diversity of the area.

Greenpeace therefore devised an online game called the Turtle vs. Tata. The game, which is currently being played by a large number of online users features a turtle (the player) who must eat as many white dots as possible whilst avoiding the ‘demons’ named Ratty (presumably named after the group chairman Ratan Tata), Natty, Matty or Tinku which are in the shape of colourful Tata symbols.

Tata Sons, the holding company of the group on July 16 filed a suit in the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of their trademarked ‘T within a circle’ symbol and also sued Greenpeace for defamation. The company, which is being represented by IP firm biggies Anand and Anand, in a press statement said, “Greenpeace has unauthorisedly used the Tata trademarks without the permission of Tata Sons, thereby infringing their trademark. Greenpeace herein has not only infringed the trademark rights of Tata Sons, but is also maligning the reputation of Tata Sons."

On Tuesday, Justice Ravindra Bhat while giving Greenpeace time until August 12 to file their reply suggested that the organization stop using the logo, though not the name. Justice Bhat made it clear that it was merely a suggestion of the court and not a directive.

Ashish Fernandes, an Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace speaking to Bar & Bench said, “We plan to present the history of our campaign to support our arguments. We will use international precedents to show that our methods are a valid criticism against the project.”

Greenpeace is being represented by well known IP lawyer and named Partner of Saikrishna & Associates, Saikrishna Rajagopal. Saikrishna speaking to Bar & Bench confirmed that he is indeed representing the environmental organization but refused to comment any further on the case stating, “In my opinion it is inappropriate to discuss the case while it is sub-judice. We will articulate our arguments in court.”

With Greenpeace gaining considerable public support in its campaign, it remains to be seen how game they are to carry their fight forward.

Ref. No. CS (OS) 1407/2010