Gopal Sri Ram JCA::

[1] There are two appeals before us. One is by the defendant in the court below. It is against the decision of the learned judge entering judgment for the plaintiff and dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim. The other is by the plaintiff against the order of the judge dismissing its application to have the defendant’s principal officer committed to prison for contempt. The facts of this case are simple enough.

[2] The defendant is a well known sports goods retailer. It sells all sorts of sports apparel as well. There is a range of sports apparel under the name of ‘Le Coq Sportif’. The plaintiff is the owner of that trademark. It entered into three agreements with the defendant under the terms of which it gave to the defendant the right to manufacture and retail goods carrying the Le Coq Sportif mark. They are dated 16 December 1991 (‘the first licence agreement’), 4 July 1995 (‘the second licence agreement’) and 26 August 1996 (‘the third licence agreement’). But there was an important restriction imposed on the defendant. It could only market the goods in question within Malaysia and Singapore. Exporting the goods outside these two countries was stric