IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Golden Tobie Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Golden Tobacco Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 178 of 2021
Decided On : 04-06-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for arbitration by defendant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of trademark license agreements. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendant's contention on agreement termination. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments on arbitrability of disputes. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal position on arbitration agreements. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. in rem actions and arbitrability. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's ruling on dispute arbitrability. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. order to refer parties to arbitration. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J.
IA No. 6080/2021
1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant to arbitration.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, directors, shareholders or proprietor as the case may be, its assigns in business, franchisees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly the exclusive brands as mentioned in Schedule-3 of the Trademark Licence Agreement dated 12.02.2020 and amendment to Trademark Licence Agreement dated 29.08.2020;
(b) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, directors, shareholders or proprietor as the case may be, its assigns in business, franchisees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any product, or reproducing or using in any manner whatsoever, the infringing exclusive brands as mentioned in Schedule-3 of the Trademark Licence Agreement dated 12.02.2020 and amendment to Trademark Licence Agreement dated 29.08.2020, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar;
(c) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, directors, shareholders or proprietor as the case may be, its assigns in business, franchisees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any product, or reproducing or using in any manner whatsoever, the infringing exclusive brands as mentioned in Schedule-3 of the trademark licence agreement dated 12.02.2020 and amendment to trademark licence agreement dated 29.08.2020, amounting to passing off of the goods/services and/or business of the Defendant for those of the Plaintiff, dilution of goodwill and unfair competition;
(d) A decree for delivery up of all products and material including stationery, visiting cards, billboards, brochures, promotional material, letter-heads, cash memos, sign boards, sign posts, leaflets, cartons or any other items of whatsoever, bearing the infringing logo mark and the infringing trade dress, and/or any other mark, logo, device or trade dress which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs well-known logomark and trade dress;
(e) A decree of damages amounting to Rs.16,70,30,721.84 (Rupees Sixteen Crores Seventy Lakhs Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-One and Eighty-Four Paise Only) or any such amount as found due in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submit that the valuation of damages is an approximate figure only, and the Plaintiff undertakes to pay further Court fee as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court upon the damages that the Plaintiff is able to prove in the course of trial;
(f) An order for rendition of accounts of profits in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant to ascertain the profits made by Defendant through sale of its products or any other products which bear the infringing logo mark and the infringing trade dress. The Court fees as and when the accounts of profit are determined precisely and accurately in the course of trial, and upon disclosure of profits made by the Defendants;"
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties entered into a Master Long Term Supply
Decree for permanent injunction - Cancelled Assignment of trademark - Termination of Agreement - Assignment of trademark is by a contract and not by a statutory act. It does not involve any exercise ....
Allegations of fraud do not negate arbitration clauses unless proven to affect the validity of the entire agreement, thus allowing disputes to be referred to arbitration.
A Trademark License Agreement that allows exclusive rights cannot be terminated unilaterally unless specific breach conditions are met; otherwise, it remains enforceable.
A party cannot take contradictory stands in the same case and cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts. Both parties must be ad idem for arbitration to proceed.
The court emphasized the arbitrability of certain disputes and the grant of injunctions based on a prima facie case of unauthorized trademark use.
The LPA remedy is not ousted by Section 13 of the 2015 Act.
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.