Case Summary: Chasvinder Singh vs. M/S Swiss Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

This judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on August 30, 2024, concerns a complex dispute involving trademarks, copyright, and familial property rights centered on the trademark “SAP SWISS.” The case highlights issues related to trademark ownership, family settlements, licensing agreements, and procedural nuances in the adjudication of intellectual property rights.

Background

1. Parties:

? Appellant: Chasvinder Singh, the registered proprietor of the trademark “SAP SWISS,” and the owner of copyrights related to the mark.

? Respondents: Swiss Auto Pvt. Ltd., represented by Esvinder Singh, the appellant’s brother, among other defendants.

2. Trademark Use and Licensing:

? The appellant had entered into a license agreement (2007-2012) allowing the respondent company to use the “SAP SWISS” trademark for automotive products.

? The agreement expired in 2012, but the respondent allegedly continued to use the trademark without authorization.

3. Family Settlement Dispute:

? The respondents argued that a family settlement (2014) allocated rights to the trademark “SAP SWISS” among family members.

? The appellant contested the validity and enforceability of this settlement regarding the trademark.

Key Issues

1. Trademark Ownership:

? Whether “SAP SWISS” is an individual property of the appellant or a shared family asset as per the alleged family settlement.

2. Prima Facie Case:

? Whether the appellant, as the registered trademark owner, could be restricted from using the mark pending litigation.

3. Family Settlement Validity:

? Whether the family settlement created enforceable rights over the trademark in favor of the respondents.

4. Procedural Issues:

? Whether evidence beyond pleadings can be considered, as raised in affidavits by the respondents.

Court’s Findings

1. Ownership of the Trademark:

? The appellant’s registration of the “SAP SWISS” trademark and associated copyrights was long-standing, dating back to the 1980s and 1990s.

? No prima facie evidence suggested that the trademark was a family property.

2. License Agreement:

? The respondents acknowledged the appellant’s ownership by entering into a license agreement to use the mark from 2007 to 2012.

? Continued use beyond the license period constituted unauthorized use.

3. Family Settlement:

? The alleged settlement lacked a final written agreement concerning the transfer of trademark rights.

? Drafts and communications about a potential settlement could not override the statutory requirement for written trademark assignments under Section 2(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

4. Procedural Fairness:

? The court criticized the lower court’s reliance on evidence beyond pleadings, especially in affidavits that were not part of the original written statement.

5. Interim Injunction:

? The court noted procedural irregularities in granting an injunction against the appellant, the registered proprietor, while overlooking the lack of prima facie evidence from the respondents.

Judgment

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order restraining the appellant from using the trademark “SAP SWISS.” It held that:

1. The respondents failed to establish a prima facie case for their entitlement to use the trademark.

2. The family settlement did not constitute a binding agreement to transfer trademark rights.

3. The appellant, as the registered proprietor, retained full rights to use the trademark pending final adjudication.

Significance

This judgment underscores:

? The strength of statutory rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

? The necessity of clear, binding agreements in family disputes involving intellectual property.

? Procedural rigor in considering evidence and pleadings during interim relief applications.