IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Viridian Development Managers Private Limited & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Rps Infrastructure Limited - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 335 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Branding Dispute - 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 9 - The judgment discusses the rights of the parties under the MOU and Agreements dated 28.06.2021, the termination of the agreements, and the subsequent use of the brand/marks 'World Trade Centre Faridabad', 'WTC Faridabad', and WTC Logo by the respondent. The court grants interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the marks and directs the respondent to switch to a non-infringing mark/brand within 3 months.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent developed a project under the name 'RPS Infinia' and entered into agreements with the petitioners for branding and marketing services. Disputes arose regarding the use of the brand/marks and outstanding dues, leading to termination of the agreements and subsequent legal notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that upon termination of the agreements, the respondent had no right to use the brand/marks and granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the marks. The court also directed the respondent to switch to a non-infringing mark/brand within 3 months.
Issues: The issues involved termination of agreements, use of brand/marks, outstanding dues, and the grant of interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: Upon termination of the agreements, the respondent ceased to have any right in respect of the brand/marks, and the petitioners were within their rights to seek an injunction. Delay in approaching the court did not defeat the rights of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the marks and directed the respondent to switch to a non-infringing mark/brand within 3 months. The monetary claims were to be adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal.
Key Points: - Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking injunction against use of trademarks "World Trade Centre Faridabad", "WTC Faridabad", and WTC Logo, and other reliefs (!) (!) (!) - Respondent entered MOU and agreements dated 28.06.2021 with petitioners for rebranding "RPS Infinia" as "WTC Faridabad", with clause stating no right to use brands upon termination (!) (!) (!) (!) - Petitioners terminated agreements via notice dated 12.05.2023 due to breaches and non-payment, demanding cessation of brand use (!) (!) - Court held that upon termination, respondent has no right to use the marks, as continued use by ex-licensee constitutes infringement and deceives public (!) (!) (!) (!) - Delay in approaching court (5 months) does not defeat petitioners' rights, as injunction follows upon established infringement (!) (!) - Court granted interim injunction restraining use of marks, directed switch to non-infringing mark within 3 months, and removal from media (!) (!) (!) - Monetary claims left for arbitral tribunal adjudication (!) - Respondent estopped from challenging brand rights after benefiting from agreements (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the `Act.) seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) Pass an order thereby restraining the Respondent from using the Trade Marks World Trade Centre, Faridabad; WTC, Faridabad and WTC Logo or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar thereto, in any manner whatsoever.
(b) Pass an order thereby directing the Respondent to display hoardings, for such period which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper, at conspicuous places at the sites of its Project named `RPS Infinia' and `12th Avenue' informing public that none of those projects have any connection with World Trade Centre.
(c) Pass an order thereby restraining Respondent from conducting any sale/booking of any Unit in its Projects named `RPS Infinia' and `12th Avenue' for such period which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper so that trade and public may disassociate the said trademarks (World Trade Centre, Faridabad; WTC, Faridabad and WTC Logo) from respondent;
(d) Pass an order thereby directing the Respondent herein to deposit an amount of Rs.31,30,71,753/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crore Thirty Lac Seventy-One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three only) towards its outstanding dues owed to the Petitioner No.1 and a sum of Rs.1,75,99,773/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Three only) towards its outstanding dues owed to the Petitioner No.2;
Or in the alternative
(e) Pass an order thereby directing the Respondent herein to furnish a security of the like amounts as mentioned above in order to secure the claims of the Petitioners;
(f) Pass any other such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Factual Matrix
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent is the developer of a Project being developed at land measuring 7.587 acres situated at Sector-27C,Village Sarai Khwaja, Faridabad (the `Project.). In the year 2010, the respondent launched the said project under the name of "RPS Infinia". The respondent in the month of May, 2021 approached the petitioners for availing their services including branding services and services for making sales of the balance inventory. After negotiations, the respondent and petitioner no.1 entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" (the `MOU') dated 28.06.2021 in respect of the said Project. Pursuant to the MOU, on the same date, the respondent and petitioner no.2 entered into a "Consultancy Agreement for Brand and Business Development Related Services" dated 28.06.2021 and the Respondent and petitioner no.1 entered into a "Consultancy Agreement for Marketing, Distribution and Sales Advisory Services" dated 28.06.2021.
3. By virtue of the MOU and Agreements dated 28.06.2021, the Project "RPS Infinia" was to be rebranded as WTC Faridabad alongwith the concept name defined by the respondent. The petitioners represented to have rights to the said brand/mark; further the respondent was not to have any right or claim or interest in any brand/mark associated with the petitioners. In this regard, the MOU contains the following stipulations:
"2. PROJECT BRANDING:
2.1. The Project is presently named "RPS lnfinia" and is registered with said name with Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the Developer has understood and agreed to rebrand the Project.
2.2. The Project and any adjacent expansion shall be branded as WTC Faridabad along with the concept name defined by the Developer in its entirety.
2.3. The Developer has clarified its desire for the high street retail concept to be promoted along with the concept name defined by the Developer (12th Avenue) equally in all branding relating to the Project.
2.4. Both parties have agreed that they will work mutually with a marketing agency towards a final branding nomenclature and hierarchy such that the views of both parties are achieved in the interests of the success of the Project (s)
2.5. Trad
Baker Hughes Limited v. Hiroo Khushalani
Fedders North American v. Show Line
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia
Rob Mathys India Pvt. Ltd. v. Synthes Ag Chur
Velcro Industries B.V. v. Velcro India Ltd.
Fedders North American v. Show Line
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia
Upon termination of agreements, the respondent had no right to use the brand/marks, and the petitioners were within their rights to seek an injunction. Delay in approaching the court did not defeat t....
The court emphasized the arbitrability of certain disputes and the grant of injunctions based on a prima facie case of unauthorized trademark use.
The court confirmed that a written agreement prevails over claims of oral licenses in matters of trademark use, reiterating that determinable contracts cannot be enforced for specific performance und....
The plaintiff possesses exclusive rights to the title 'Indian Express', and any use of 'New Indian Express' by the defendant beyond specified territories constitutes trademark infringement.
Intellectual Property - Infringement of registered trade mark - Modify interim order - Subject to defendants filing an undertaking of their directors to abide by terms and conditions of undertaking a....
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
Dishonest adoption of identical abbreviated mark in same field, without bona fides explanation and false prior use claim, defeated by prior global/India rights via registrations, franchises, domains,....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.