ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CLASS

ADJUDICATED BY MR. SHANKER P AND TEAM.

Facts:

Xavier Latex Industry is an establishment coming under the ID

Act.

Due to unavailability of raw material, the company is shut down

Employees are retrenched

BMC and INTUC files suit

Retrenchment compensation not paid to the workers as on date

of suit.

HC orders for mediation.

Point in favour of Employer

1.

Retrenchment is not a punitive act from companys part

2.

Company is going through worst crisis as RM is a critical factor

3.

In touch with the banks to get money to pay compensation.

Excepts the money in 3 months time.

4.

Informed informally to the party leaders.

5.

Will take back the mployees as soon as operations become

normal
Points in favour of Employee
1.

Management vindictive. Pick and choose the workers who are not
in good books of the management. Last in First out policy not
followed.

2.

No notice as per Section 25 of ID Act has been issued to

employees.
3.

Lack trust on the management

4.

It is almost 6 months the retrenchment has been ordered.

5.

No written letter to the employees were given by the

management.

Mediator
1.

To be forwarded to labour court instead HC.

2.

Management did not follow the process.

3.

Employees should have called up for a discussion before filing

suit.
4.

Agreement to be signed containing the following points:

a)

Target date of taking back the employees.

b)
Payment of compensation within reasonable time, maximum
limit
before 30 days.
c)

Taking back of staff should be based on the process laid down in

ID Act. i.e. experienced person should be given first preference.

ROLE MODEL PRACTICAL EXERCISE IN CLASS

THE PROBLEM
A Swedish Software Developer had registered a trademark for
communication software in Sweden and Canada. The Manufacturer of
the computer hardware based elsewhere registered an almost identical
mark for computer hardware in a number of Asian countries. Both
parties had been engaged in the legal proceedings in various
jurisdiction concerning the registration and use of their marks. Each
party had effectively prevented the other from registering and using its
mark in the jurisdiction in which it holds the prior rights. In order to
facilitate the use and registration of their respective marks world wide
the parties entered into a coexistence agreement which contained in
the WIPO arbitration clause. When the Swedish company tried to
register its trademark in particular Asian county the application was
refused on the basis of existing risk of confusion with prior mark held
by the other party. The company hence requested the other to
undertake efforts to enable it to register its mark in that Asian country
and when the other party refused, initiated the arbitration proceedings.
The role model done by this student is as the representative of the
hardware manufacturer M/s. Asokan Software Communications Pvt.
Ltd.
The points of Arguments:

There is an already a settled Agreement.

There is not hard and fast rule that an hardware company cannot
develop software.

It is only attritional partition that was agreed to and the Asian

and adjoining areas were not considered in the Agreement.

The Swedish Company has yet not registered its product in India.

Our Company has already registered a similar product in India.

Hence, there is no violation of any infringement of Trade Mark or

Intellectual Property Rights.

Attention is drawn to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of

India pertaining to the violation of Intellectual property Rights on

Novartis. Even though the product was registered in India. A

violation was not observed by the Supreme Court of India.

It is only trying to prove might is right.

This we are prepared to discuss a co-existence agreement for the

benefit of both the parties over the Asia-Pacific Region.