Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. A Technical Collaboration Agreement was entered into between plaintiff no. 1, and defendant no. 2. It was a License Agreement. This agreement was for a period of five years ending 14th February, 1998. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in the year 1998 itself. As a result several meetings were held between the parties and it was decided in December, 1999 that Danish partners would sell their 96,000 shares to the Indian Partners for total consideration of Rs. 96,44,000/- and thereafter be free to set up an independent business either in partnership or on its own in India.

6. The grievance of the plaintiffs/applicants stems from the use of logo KE by the defendants in stationery, publicity material and also on the products. The instances of the use of the logo KE by the defendants have been shown in documents at pages 147, 148 and 150 to 161. So much so in one of their brochures it is alleged that the defendant has a Joint Venture between the plaintiff no. 1 and Shah Business House, inspite of the fact that by way of compromise deed the defendants had agreed to dis-associate themselves from the plaintiff. Following clauses introduced in the Agreement as well as Technical Collaboration Agreement show that the defendants had not only agreed to disassociate themselves from the plaintiff but also that the use of the logo in question was a permissive use by the defendants.

(vi) That the defendant no. 2 company was incorporated on 14th May, 1987 whereas the Joint Venture Agreement is dated 15th January, 1987 and, therefore, the question of granting any license to defendant no. 2 under the agreement dated 15th January, 1987 does not arise and thus the use of the logo by the defendant no. 2 is in its independent capacity and right and with the registration of the logo under the Trade Mark Act, this right has become unassailable.

(vii) That when defendant no. 2 came into existence on 14th May, 1987, the Technical Collaboration Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and Article 10 upon which the plaintiff is relying and which was for the purpose of license given to the defendant no. 2 shows that it was only in respect of licensed products manufactured for export only. Article 10 reads as under:-

(viii) That it was by virtue of its being registered owner of a trade mark in Denmark that the plaintiff by way of a Technical Collaboration Agreement granted the license to defendant no. 2 for using the trade mark in respect of licensed products manufactured for export only.

(ix) That the registration of the trade mark was to the knowledge of the plaintiff and plaintiff had also the knowledge about the registration of the defendant no. 2 company and since they had 40% share in the company and two Directors on the Board in a total Board of five Directors, it is no more open to rake up the controversy of using the trade mark which even otherwise is, by way of registration, not permissible.