Summary:

CCP initiated an enquiry into the matter after receiving a complaint from M/s Agritech Limited wherein it was alleged that its brand ‘Tara’ was being used fraudulently and illegally by the Respondent to market its products and business and further that M/s Tara Crop Sciences Private Limited had resorted to the dissemination of misleading information which was capable of harming the business interests of M/s Agritech Limited. A show cause notice was issued on the basis of the enquiry report which found M/s Tara Crop Sciences Private Limited to be in prima facie violation of Section 10 of the Act.

One of the issues that came up for consideration was whether the proceedings before the Commission are maintainable during the pendency of civil suits essentially that the Commission was barred in terms of Section 10 CPC. The Commission held that there was no such bar.

The Commission looked into the ingredients of Section 10(1) noting that the provision constitutes of two main elements, i) there must be dissemination of false or misleading information, and ii) it must be capable of harming another’s business interest. In this regard, the Commission found that the respondents use of the term ‘tara’ in its advertisements was capable of deceiving consumers and other stakeholders into assuming an affiliation between ‘tara zarai markaz’ and the complainant’s products. Further, the Commission also observed that the respondents practice also fell under the ambit of free-riding.

The order specifies that with regards to trademark disputes, the granting of proprietary rights in intellectual property remains the sole domain of the Intellectual Property Organization and CCP cannot make any determinations in this regard. Under section 10 (2) (d) of the Act, CCP’s mandate is limited to the protection of registered trademarks only. The order has identified violations of Section 10 (1) read with Sections 10 (2) (a) and (b), and further provided that the business interest of a business includes its goodwill and brand equity.

Remedy and Penalty:

In view of the Respondent’s violation of Section 10 of the Act, the Commission imposed on it a penalty of Pakistani Rupees One Million (PKR 1,000,000). The Commission further directed the Respondent to immediately cease solitary use of the distinct term ‘Tara’, as in its present form, in its exclusive franchise network ‘Tara Zarai Markaz’. The Respondent was directed to ensure that the franchise network is renamed so as to make it perfectly clear that its business has no connection with the Complainant’s brand or products.

CURRENT STATUS:

Tara filed appeal before Competition Appellate Tribunal. CAT has dismissed the appeal. Tara filed appeal before Supreme Court.