HC restrains man from using sites in name of Tata group chief

The Delhi High Court has restrained a private person from using the websites he created in the name of Tata group Chairman, Cyrus Pallonji Mistry, saying the sites were created to "blatantly and illegally" capitalise on the well-known name of the business tycoon.
Justice Manmohan Singh directed the private person to transfer the sites, www.Cyrusmistry.Co.Uk and www.Cyrusmistry.Co, in favour of Mistry.
"The loss and damage incurred by the plaintiffs (Tata and Mistry) is also on account of loss of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs/its Chairman and companies promoted by him in the market. The defendant (Aniket Sigh) is blatantly and illegally capitalizing on the strength of use of the well known personal name of plaintiff 2 i.E Cyrus P Mistry for the purposes of making illegal profit and gain.

"In light of the submissions on merit by passing the decree for permanent injunction, it is also directed that the impugned websites www.Cyrusmistry.Co.Uk and www.Cyrusmistry.Co are to be transferred in favour of plaintiff No. 2 who is also Chairman of plaintiff No. 1 company (Tata)," the court said
The court also imposed punitive costs of Rs five lakh on the defendant and directed that the amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Library Fund.
The judge noted that the domain names were created on December 20, 2011, barely a month after Tata group announced that Mistry would be taking over as Chairman from December 2012.

Referring to an email sent by the defendant to the company on February 4, 2012, the court said the communication "clearly brings to the fore the threatening tone of the defendant".

"The underlying tenor of the email is a manifestation of the ulterior motive of the defendant to extort money illegally and unfairly from the plaintiffs," the court noted in its 17-page order.
The high court said that increase in number of high-value
endorsement deals being signed by famous personalities signifies the tremendous value attached to such endorsements.
"It is therefore evident that if such commercial value in a personality is appropriated by persons like the defendant who are not authorized to do so, then the said personality, i.E. Mistry, the plaintiff No. 2, should be granted the right to sue for such embezzlement." the court said.

It also said if the defendant was allowed to "piggyback" on the enormous goodwill and reputation associated with the "well-known personal name" of Mistry, the damage that would be caused to the businessman would be "insurmountable".
It also noted that the defendant was "deliberately and in an unauthorized manner" trying to "usurp" the reputation of the businessman.
"Thus, it is evident that the defendant has registered the impugned domain names with the mala-fide and ulterior motive of holding the plaintiffs to ransom and thereafter with the evil intention of extorting huge amounts of money from the plaintiffs. The said malpractice shall never be allowed by this court.

"Such acts of the defendant amount to invasion of the right to publicity/privacy rights of Mistry, as well as passing off in right to protect his name, persona or anything emanating out of these as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution," the court said.