2004 (7) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....porated. The Appellants had 40% shareholding in this Company. Clause 8.3 of this Agreement provided as under: "8.3 In the event of Baker holding less than 40% of the paid up equity capital of the said Company, if the word 'Baker' is part of the name of the said Company, the said Company shall not be entitled to retain the said word as part of its name; the intention being that the said word shall be used as part of the name of the said Company by virtue of the permission of Baker and that the said Company shall have no property interest in the said word; and if Baker so requires the said Company shall change its name to a name not including the word 'Baker' or any similar word. If Baker so desires, the parties shall ensure that Baker and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which the interim injunction has been vacated is that the right of the Appellants (herein) under Clause 8.3 of the Agreement dated 21.12.1984 was not enforceable. The Division Bench held that the Agreement had not been placed before the Government of India and was thus illegal and unenforceable. 5. Prima facie, it appears to us that the Division Bench has erroneously interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The application, which had been made by the 1st Respondent to the Government of India, itself shows that the Appellants had a very huge turnover, that they are regularly supplying equipment to parties in India. As per this letter they had reputation .in India. At the interim stage this admission of the 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vernment of India, the Agreement was illegal and unenforceable. This argument has found favour with the Division Bench. Prima fade, it appears to us that this is a self defeating argument If the Agreement was not to be acted upon, then there is no right in the 2nd Respondent company to use the name 'Baker'. In spite of questions from this Court no other permission or licence to use the name "Baker" could be shown to us. If the Agreement is unenforceable then the entire Agreement is unenforceable. In that case the 2nd Respondent has got no right to use the name "Baker". On the reasoning that this Agreement was illegal and unenforceable the interim injunction should have been confirmed. The goods being identical there was likelihood of confus....