Seven people have just been convicted in India regarding the Union Carbide industrial accident in 1993.  In what is called the Hiroshima of the chemical industry poisonous gas escaped from an American pesticide plant in Bhopal, India.  The 2 year sentences of Indian employees will doubtless be appealed and have been described as derisory and shameful.

Half a million people were exposed and up to 10,000 people died at the time, with total direct deaths attributable being over 30,000, and maybe over 100,000 still living with related health problems and deformities.

Union Carbide has always maintained that its subsidiary, Union Carbide India, was wholly responsible for the incident.  Union Carbide India was also 49% owned by the Indian government.  There are sources that claim that Union Carbide itself cut costs – leading directly to the incident.

A theory from a trade mark perspective: 

‘Union Carbide India’ is of clear derivation from, or infringement of, Union Carbide.  This may sound self-evident and a silly point to make but it pays to remember that when you use a trade mark you use the goodwill associated with it.  There are even facilities in trade mark law for a company to litigate for infringement of a famous mark even in countries where they have no registered trade mark protection. 

Marks therefore overcome property, having as part of their function an indication of source and guarantee of origin.  One can be sure that Union Carbide India paid a good price to Union Carbide to use that trade mark.

So if the trade mark is inseparably linked to its proprietor, surely the acts are also?