Vijay Kumar Munjal v. Pawan Kumar Munjal
Poonam
Army Law College Pune
This Case Commentary is written by Poonam a First-Year Law Student of Army Law College Pune
Case Details
In the High Court of New Delhi
Vijay Kumar Munjal v. Pawan Kumar Munjal
Date of Judgement - 17 February, 2022
Judges:-
1. Justice (Retired) Dipak Mishra
2. Justice (Retired) Indermeet Kaur
3. Justice (Retired) Indu Malhotra
Introduction
The way witnessing the mordant development and advancement in the technology, business sector, highly competitive environment; likewise, also propels the elevation in the promiscuity of intellectual property (IP) disputes like patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, etc. Sooner people used to adhere to the route of litigation suchwise solve the dispute associated with the intellectual property but slowly and gradually over some time arbitration has supervene as an epochal mechanism for solving all these appurtenant disputes. With confrontation to the litigation, ADR caters to a flexible, efficient, cost-effective, and faster dispute resolution body. Even the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Munjal v. Pawan Kumar Munjal, has allowed the Arbitration of IP disputes, upon observing one peculiarity.
Facts
The Munjal family has been known for its Family business of manufacturing bicycles since 1944.Owing to their Instituted partnership firm, M/s. Hero Cycles, the Munjal family managed to effectuate a trademark for the consuetude of their brand name "Hero" in 1953. With time, they had Horsed Out their business to numerous sectors and uninterruptedly kept on demeaning the mark "Hero" across all sectors, which as an impact led to making it an identity of the family. To cast aside any imaginable dispute amongst the family members in the future, they had entered into a Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) in 2010, under which all the four heads of the family determined to formulate four distinct groups namely, A1, A2, A3, and A4 family groups, and echeloned the properties into four bundles. Which each of the heads of the family was entitled to handle. All of the heads of the family also determined to enter into a Trademarks and Name Agreement (TMNA) which evaluates the objectives for which each family was entitled to avail the benefits of the mark "Hero".
Argument/Dispute
1. The petitioners alleged that the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the Family Settlement Agreement (FSA) and Trade Marks and Name Agreement (TMNA) as under the foundation of aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement, there were some pre-determined objectives for which each family was entitled to avail the benefits of the mark "Hero". But, now they intend to conduct the business relating to electric/eco-friendly vehicles, including their components and related infrastructure and services, under the brand or trademark “Hero”.
2. The respondent opposed the petition owing to the numerous fundamentals which involve that the disputes are not arbitrable, disputes are Incarcerated by the prescribed limitation period, and that the petitioners have cast aside the respondents using the trademark "Hero".
3. The petitioners claimed that under the ambit of the terms and conditions of the FSA and TMNA, the A1 Family Group was in possession of the exclusive rights to use the trademark "Hero" for their establishment in certain goods like Electric Vehicles.
4. Petitioners clarified that the acts of the respondents infringed the terms of the FSA and TMNA. Thus, accordingly, the petition was filed under section 9 of the A&C. Moreover, a notice for commencing the arbitration was also issued under section 21.
Issues
The issue in the dilemma of other issues, the Court was solicited to confer a verdict on whether a trademark dispute, flaming out exclusively out of contractual rights, can be referred to Arbitration.
Judgements
Arbitration has supervened as an epochal mechanism for solving all these appurtenant disputes. With confrontation to the litigation, ADR caters to a flexible, efficient, cost-effective, and faster dispute resolution body. ADR, owing to its private bench, can not decide the disputes or subject matter which can have an impact upon the society at large. The right in dispute flames out owing to the haecceity of the Agreement between the parties and not from anything which will solicit the interruption of the Registration of Trademark. The Petitioner's claim was not about the use of the trademark "Hero", rather it was limited to their contractual rights as guaranteed by the FSA and TMNA. Therefore no right of a third party is affected. Hereinafter the court passes on the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal to confer the verdict upon the dispute.
Implications
The aforesaid case of Vijay Kumar Munjal v. Pawan Kumar Munjal has numerous implications specifically in the context of family dispute, Trademarks and Name Agreement (TMNA), Family Settlement Agreement (FSA), and the enactment of the case as the precedent for the upcoming future disputes. In the case of Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the court thought that rights conferred, owing to registration with the authority of the copyright, parents, and trademarks; the rights conferred to an individual but the same enforceable against the general public. Similarly in the case of Ayyasamy v. Paramasivam & Ors and Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh and Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh the court held the IP disputes non-arbitrable. Notwithstanding, the present case altered the previous judgments given in the sooner disputes by assenting Arbitration. The contention behind not settling the Intellectual Property disputes through Arbitration is that when the intellectual property is registered in any party's favour then it exclusively confers the right to avail the benefits out of it in such party's favour only additionally it detains others from effectuating any undue advantages of such registered intellectual property.
Conclusions
Eventually, I would like to conclude by mentioning with the advancement and elevation in the corporate world the need for speedy disposal of disputes is also increasing. Thus, there is an exigency for consideration of the Arbitrability of certain disputes and to adopt necessary amendments in the aforesaid matter. The High Court perceived that responses A2 and A3 were required to modulate in the arbitral proceedings as parties, instead of the existence of the scenario that they might not be the signatories to the FSA or TMNA. The judgment of the High Court acts as a guiding element of clarification regarding the arbitrability of IP disputes. It's not set in stone that if there exists any contractual obligation then the parties are permitted to settle their disputes through Arbitration as sometimes it may be possible that owing to the presence of public interest these matters might be settled through litigation.
References