Background of the Case:
The case before us is that of Chasvinder Singh vs. M/S Swiss Auto Pvt Ltd & Ors, which came to a decision on 30 August 2024. It involves a dispute over intellectual property rights, specifically regarding the use of registered trademarks and copyright in the context of a family business dealing with automotive products such as wirings, harnesses, side mirrors, and blinkers. The appellant, Chasvinder Singh, and respondent no.2, Esvinder Singh, are brothers who had a falling out over the ownership and use of certain trademarks and copyrights within the family business.
Issue of the Case:
The primary issue at stake in this case is the right to use the registered trademarks and copyright, which are claimed by both Chasvinder Singh and Esvinder Singh. Chasvinder contends that he has the exclusive right to use the trademarks, while Esvinder argues that these are coparcenary properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of their late father, S. Ajit Singh, and that he has a right to use them by virtue of a Family Settlement agreement.
Contentions of the Parties:
Chasvinder Singh, the appellant, claims that he started receiving complaints about the quality of goods sold by the respondents under the suit marks, which led him to terminate the license agreement he had with them. He argues that he has been manufacturing goods under the mark "SAP SWISS" since 2001 and that the Family Settlement does not prohibit him from using the suit marks.
Esvinder Singh, respondent no.2, asserts that the suit marks are intellectual property rights belonging to the HUF and that all coparceners, including himself and the appellant, have a right to these properties. He further contends that the appellant had agreed to assign the suit marks and copyright to him through the Family Settlement.
Issues Dealt with by the Court:
The court had to address several issues in this case, including:
Whether the appellant had a prima facie case for continuing to use the trademarks.
Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favored either party.
The validity and enforceability of the Family Settlement agreement regarding the assignment of trademarks and copyright.
The relevance of certain affidavit portions in the context of the pleadings and the controversy for adjudication.
Reasons and Final Decision:
The court, in its judgment, found that the learned Single Judge had not adequately evaluated the prima facie case presented by respondent no.2, Esvinder Singh. Despite the contention that the trademarks were HUF property, the court did not find merit in this argument and did not accept that the appellant should be interdicted from using the trademarks. The court noted that the suit marks were registered in favor of the appellant, and the license taken by respondent no.1 (Swiss Auto Pvt. Ltd.) from the appellant had terminated.
The court also addressed the procedural irregularities, such as the absence of a counterclaim by the respondents for the transfer of the suit marks, and the disposal of the related suit (CS(OS) No.232/2017) without a decree being granted as prayed for in that suit. The court found that the only surviving relief sought by the appellant was a permanent injunction restraining the use of the suit marks and copyright.
In its final decision, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the application seeking to expunge portions of the affidavit furnished by respondent no.2. The court also dismissed the application to read the pleadings from the disposed suit as part of the current suit's pleadings.
In summary, the court ruled in favor of Chasvinder Singh, allowing him to continue using the trademarks and copyright, and setting aside the previous order that had interdict him from doing so. The court's decision highlights the importance of proper pleadings, the evaluation of prima facie cases, and the enforceability of family settlements in intellectual property disputes.
Case Citation: Chasvinder Singh Vs Swiss Auto Pvt Ltd: 30.08.2024:FAO(OS) (COMM) 311: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment