TATA Steel, a very influential company in India, is building the Dhamra port at the mouth of the Dhamra River, just north of the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary, Orissa- the largest of only three nesting sites for the Olive Ridley in the world. Naturally the endangered Olive Ridley sea turtle is facing massive challenge to its survival, due to port construction.
The international environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO), Greenpeace has made an animation with the Sholay characters to highlight the cause of the endangered turtles in Orissa.
According to Sascha Sippy, chairman, Sholay Media and Entertainment, “Greenpeace’s animation is a violation of trademark, copyright and underlying rights. They have insinuated that Gabbar is anti-environment and have associated Sholay and all its characters in negative light. We, the owners of the characters, do not support Greenpeace’s views”. here
It thus appears that the makers of the Sholay, will take legal action against Greenpeace, for gross violation of copyright and trademark, and for the wrongful use of its characters.
Of course, this statement by Sascha Sippy means we all must agree that Gabbar whose “body count” in Sholay rivals that of the T-800 terminator cyborg in the film Terminator was what is known as a “Green Bandit”- while he bumped off people like flies in the film -the preservation of the flora and fauna also occupied much of his time!!!
What a laughable and riduculous suggestion that Gabbar or rather the (so-called) claimed trademark would be tarnished in any way by use in this context! Where is the use in the course of trade and /or liklihood of confusion? Surely the use of the so called “mark” is with due cause (remember the defence to defamation- fair comment?)Dont miss a great opportunity to critique such (mis)use of IP (or an attempt to do so).
> According to Sascha Sippy, chairman, Sholay Media and Entertainment, “Greenpeace’s animation is a violation of trademark, copyright and underlying rights. They have insinuated that Gabbar is anti-environment and have associated Sholay and all its characters in negative light.
Has it not occurred to them that if they go ahead with the suit, Sholay Media in its entirety will be associated in a negative light?
There is something blatantly hypocritical in the SM stance – In order not to have your fictitious characters, even the baddies, branded anti-environment, make life difficult for the people who are working for the environment!
Which makes it all the likelier that all this is just a pretext, one more attempt to use law to silence those who speak against deep-rooted corporate interests.