DCC 164/2007

The original dispute involved a request that ownership of a trademark be confirmed and a second company's use of the mark be cancelled. One of the parties tried to argue their use had been allowed in an agreement between the two parties. This argument was invalid because the two companies had different commercial activities.

Background

A company filed a case against another company and requested the court to cancel the trading mark of the second company and confirm their ownership of this mark which had been issued in India.

The court rejected the case.

The company appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The company appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in its grounds of appeal that the ruling had violated the law and had insufficient evidence of causation because the court had established its ruling based on the argument that an agreement between the two parties permitted the second the company to use the trading mark although this was a legal issue.

The court stated this argument was invalid because the two companies had different commercial activities.

The court dismissed the appeal.