The court affirmed the maintainability of appeals against ad-interim orders under the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing the need to preserve status quo regarding trademark rights pending resolution of disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Delivered by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy)

An agreement dated 31.10.1960 was entered into between Massey Ferguson Limited (MFL), a company incorporated in Canada, and Amalgamations (Private) Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. This agreement envisaged the formation of a joint venture company by and between the two parties thereto in the name and style of “Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited” and is hereafter referred to as the JV Agreement. Pursuant to the JV Agreement, such company was incorporated and is the respondent herein. The JV Agreement envisaged the execution of a technical assistance agreement as per the template set out as Appendix II thereto. Such Technical Assistance Agreement was executed on 18.09.1961.

2. On 17.03.1978, a Trademark Users Agreement (the 1978 TM Agreement) was executed by and between MFL and the respondent herein. The 1978 TM Agreement recognised that MFL was the registered proprietor of the trademarks bearing the registration numbers mentioned in the schedule thereto. It also provided for the use of such trademarks by the respondent herein. On the same date, an Agreement for the Sale of Technical Information and Know-how was entered into between Massey Ferguson Services N.V. Netherlands Antilles and the respondent herein. This was followed by the execution of the Trademark Registered User agreement dated 18.03.1994 (the 1994 TM Agreement) between Massey Ferguson Corp (Delaware) Inc. (MFC Delaware) and the respondent herein, which was effective from 30.07.1991. Like the 1978 TM Agreement, the 1994 TM Agreement was also in respect of the use of trademarks of MFC Delaware by the respondent herein. Clause 9 of the said agreement enables no fault termination by either party by giving six months notice in writing to the other. A letter agreement dated 03.08.2007 was executed thereafter by and between AGCO Corporation(AGCO), a company incorporated in Georgia, USA, and the respondent herein. This agreement was to provide protection in case a competitor of the respondent acquires not less than a threshold stake in AGCO. Various other agreements were also entered into by the appellant or the AGCO group with the respondent, but it is not necessary to set out those details for present purposes.

3. The business relationship between the parties, thus, commenced with the JV Agreement and continued without interruption for a period in excess of six decades. After disputes arose between the parties, a termination notice dated 26.04.2024 (First Termination Notice) was issued by the appellant/Massey Ferguson Corp to the respondent to terminate the 1994 TM Agreement by invoking clause 8 thereof. It also provided that the appellant reserves its rights to terminate the said agreement prior to the date of termination specified therein in case of any breach by the respondent. Around the same time, it appears that a similar termination notice was issued in respect of another agreement. In those circumstances, initially the respondent and TAFE International LLC, Turkey filed C.O.S.No.2 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, and obtained an ad-interim order of status quo ante against AGCO International GmbH and AGCO. This was challenged by the defendants by filing C.R.P.(PD)(MD) Nos. 1830 to 1833 of 2024. By order dated 08.08.2024, the parties were referred to arbitration and pre-arbitration mediation. Such mediation is in progress before a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed COS No.117 of 2024 before the Commercial Court at Egmore, Chennai seeking a declaration that the First Termination Notice is invalid and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, i.e. Massey Ferguson Corp and AGCO, from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's right to use the brand/trademarks Massey Ferguson (MF) in India. By order dated 30.04.2024 in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in the said suit, the Court directed parties to maintai