other team's problem 3

2
ROLE MODEL PRACTICAL EXERCISE IN CLASS THE PROBLEM A Swedish Software Developer had registered a trademark for communication software in Sweden and Canada. The Manufacturer of the computer hardware based elsewhere registered an almost identical mark for computer hardware in a number of Asian countries. Both parties had been engaged in the legal proceedings in various jurisdiction concerning the registration and use of their marks. Each party had effectively prevented the other from registering and using its mark in the jurisdiction in which it holds the prior rights. In order to facilitate the use and registration of their respective marks world wide the parties entered into a coexistence agreement which contained in the WIPO arbitration clause. When the Swedish company tried to register its trademark in particular Asian county the application was refused on the basis of existing risk of confusion with prior mark held by the other party. The company hence requested the other to undertake efforts to enable it to register its mark in that Asian country and when the other party refused, initiated the arbitration proceedings. The role model done by this student is as the representative of the hardware manufacturer M/s. Asokan Software Communications Pvt. Ltd. The points of Arguments:- There is an already a settled Agreement. There is not hard and fast rule that an hardware company cannot develop software.

Upload: manu-j-plamootil

Post on 29-Jan-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

ADR

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Other Team's Problem 3

ROLE MODEL PRACTICAL EXERCISE IN CLASS

THE PROBLEM

A Swedish Software Developer had registered a trademark for communication software in Sweden and Canada. The Manufacturer of the computer hardware based elsewhere registered an almost identical mark for computer hardware in a number of Asian countries. Both parties had been engaged in the legal proceedings in various jurisdiction concerning the registration and use of their marks. Each party had effectively prevented the other from registering and using its mark in the jurisdiction in which it holds the prior rights. In order to facilitate the use and registration of their respective marks world wide the parties entered into a coexistence agreement which contained in the WIPO arbitration clause. When the Swedish company tried to register its trademark in particular Asian county the application was refused on the basis of existing risk of confusion with prior mark held by the other party. The company hence requested the other to undertake efforts to enable it to register its mark in that Asian country and when the other party refused, initiated the arbitration proceedings.

The role model done by this student is as the representative of the hardware manufacturer M/s. Asokan Software Communications Pvt. Ltd.

The points of Arguments:-

There is an already a settled Agreement.

There is not hard and fast rule that an hardware company cannot develop software.

It is only attritional partition that was agreed to and the Asian and adjoining areas were not considered in the Agreement.

The Swedish Company has yet not registered its product in India.

Our Company has already registered a similar product in India.

Hence, there is no violation of any infringement of Trade Mark or Intellectual Property Rights.

Attention is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to the violation of Intellectual property Rights on

Page 2: Other Team's Problem 3

“Novartis”. Even though the product was registered in India. A violation was not observed by the Supreme Court of India.

It is only trying to prove might is right.

This we are prepared to discuss a co-existence agreement for the benefit of both the parties over the Asia-Pacific Region.