SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Golden Tobacco Limited - Appellant
Versus
Golden Tobie Private Limited - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 182 of 2021
Decided On : 24-09-2021




A Trademark License Agreement that allows exclusive rights cannot be terminated unilaterally unless specific breach conditions are met; otherwise, it remains enforceable.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Dispute regarding violation of Trademark License Agreement - Petitioner sought injunction against respondent, alleging breach of contractual terms - The License Agreement granted exclusive rights for the use of brands and required discussions for further payment terms - Court found termination notice issued by petitioner was illegal, as it did not comply with termination requirements stated in the Agreement. (Paras 1-63)

(B) Principle of Determinability of Contracts - Contracts providing exclusivity, without rights for unilateral termination absent breach, are not inherently determinable and can be specifically enforced - The termination was deemed improper as it did not fulfill the notice requirements under the contract. (Para 34)

(C) Judicial Proceedings - The court affirmed the necessity and appropriateness of referring disputes to arbitration, highlighting that trademark-related disputes do not render the contractual matters non-arbitrable. (Paras 24-25)

Table of Content
1. ownership and agreements related to trademarks. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. breach and termination of agreements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's interim rulings and arbitration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. arguments regarding arbitration and breaches. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. analysis of arbitration clauses and rights. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. determination of contract nature. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. interpretation of determinable contracts. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
8. interim measures of protection in arbitration. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
9. findings on alleged breaches. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
10. decision on the petition and order. (Para 63)
11. final order and reservation of rights. (Para 64)

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. M/s Golden Tobacco Limited (hereafter `GTL') has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that the respondent - M/s Golden Trobe Private Limited (hereafter `GTPL') be restrained from manufacturing, selling and supplying to the market, cigarettes under the exclusive brands owned by GTL, that is, Panama, Golden Gold Flake, Golden Classic, Taj Chhap and Chancellor (hereafter referred to as `the Exclusive Brands').

2. GTL claims that it is the owner of the Exclusive Brands, which have acquired significant reputation and goodwill in domestic and international market. The trademarks `Panama' and `Taj Chhap' were registered in the name of GTL on 20.06.1954 and 22.06.1954 respectively; the trademark `Golden Gold Flake' was registered in favour of GTL on 05.04.1979; the trademark `Chancellor' was registered in favour of GTL on 25.02.1993; and the trademark `Golden Classic' was registered in favour of GTL on 15.09.2015.

3. GTL claims that GTPL was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling of cigarettes prior to August, 2019. On 16.08.2019, the parties entered into an agreement captioned `Master Long Term Supply Agreement'. In terms of this agreement, GTL agreed to supply cigarettes under its Exclusive Brands to GTPL and, GTPL agreed to purchase and distribute the same in domestic as well as international markets.

4. On 12.02.2020, the parties entered into a comprehensive Trademark License Agreement (hereafter `the Trademark License Agreement'). In terms of the Trademark License Agreement, GTL granted exclusive non-transferable and non-assignable license in respect of the Exclusive Brands to GTPL. This was subject to the exception in respect of duty free sales in India and in few other countries in respect of the trademark `Golden Gold Flake' and `Panama'.

5. GTL contends that the said Trademark License Agreement was a comprehensive agreement not only for sale, supply and distribution of cigarettes, but also for manufacture of the same under the Exclusive Brands. According to the GTL, the Master Long Term Supply Agreement dated 16.08.2019 stood superseded by the Trademark License Agreement and the same did not survive after 12.02.2020.

6. GTL terminated the Trademark License Agreement by a termination notice dated 14.08.2020 alleging that GTPL had neither commenced manufacturing of cigarettes nor paid any royalty to GTL for a period exceeding six months. Subsequently, on 29.08.2020, GTL withdrew the said termination notice in view of an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. On that date (that is, 29.08.2020), the parties entered into an Amendment Agreement (hereafter `the Amendment Agreement.) whereby it was agreed that GTPL would pay a minimum monthly royalty as specified under the Amendment Agreement for an initial period commencing from August, 2020 through November 2020. The parties agreed that they would once again meet in December, 2020 to discuss and agree upon a minimum turnover and payment of royalty.

7. GTL claims that GTPL has viola

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top