MONNALISA S.P.A. Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of this petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act' in short) by the petitioner Company which is incorporated in 1968 under the laws of Italy and is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturing, designing, fabricating and selling readymade garments and accessories for children with the trade mark 'MONNALISA' which is also alleged to be the house mark of the petitioner. The word MONNALISA also forms prominent part of the petitioner's corporate name. The petitioner's other trade marks are BEBE, BIMBA, CHIC, JAKIOO and NY & LON which are being used with its house mark MONNALISA.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that in the year 2009 upon being contacted by the respondents for obtaining licence/permission from the petitioner to sell readymade garments for the kids in India using the petitioner's trade marks MONNALISA, BEBE, BIMBA, CHIC, JAKIOO and NY & LON along with their labels, tags and packaging, the petitioner agreed to grant the permission to the respondents to conduct the business under the aforesaid trade marks in India for and on behalf of the petitioner by way of a specific Licence Agreement dated 27th August,2009 whereunder the respondents were granted a non-transferrable, exclusive and sole licence to develop, manufacture, design, market and sell readymade garments (kidswear clothing) using the trade marks MONNALISA, BEBE, BIMBA, CHIC, JAKIOO and NY & LON along with its labels i.e. BABALAI and MONNALISA FLOWERS.

(3.) THEN during another meeting on 17th November, 2011 between the parties some kind of agreement was arrived at "to revise the business relations" and terms whereof, including the term of payment of overdue royalty, were set out in para no. 25 of this petition. However, even thereafter the respondents did not honour the commitments made by them, including payment of petitioner's dues on account of royalty. Rather, on 20th March, 2012 by way of an e-mail the respondents made a false claim of having made the payment due to the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner the respondents had admitted their liability of 3,49,500 Euros but that payment was not made.