BMW & HARLEY DAVIDSONVSACE GROUP OF INDUSTRIES (AGI)

COMPLAINANTS AND RESPONDENT

Complainants (BMW & Harley Davidson)

Mr. Hassan Irfan KhanAdvocate Supreme courtMs. Habeeba AhmedAdvocateMs. Amina AfzalAdvocate

Respondent (Ace Group Of Companies)

Chaudhary Tayyab AliChaudhary Tahir MansoorBACKGROUND OF THE CASEBMW and Harley Davidson filed a complaint in CCP against AGI in 2010.It was alleged in the complaint that AGI was manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, exporting leather jackets and was putting the renowned trademarks of BMW and Harley-Davidson on its jackets and leather gear, without permission of BMW and Harley-Davidson.

BMW (COMPLAINANT NO.1)Bayerische Motoren Werke AG commonly known asBMWis a German automobile, motorcycle and engine manufacturing company founded in 1916.In 1917, BMW developed its famous logo.BMW, over a period of time, expanded its range of goods to other allied or related goods as well as large variety of fashion and luxury merchandise, accessories, etc.In order to distinguish its goods, businesses and services from others uses its trademark logo.In order to protect its interest in BMW logo, they obtained registration of trademark logo in year 1956 in Pakistan.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON (COMPLAINANT NO.2)Harley-Davidson Inc. is an Americanmotorcyclemanufacturer founded inMilwaukee, Wisconsinduring the first decade of the 20th century.In 1910, H-D developed its famous logo.HD sustains a loyal brand community which keeps active through clubs, events, and a museum. Licensing of the HD logo accounts for almost 5% of HD's net revenue.H-D is running many businesses through either itself or through many associated companies.Their businesses includes manufacturing of motorcycles, sports apparel, lifestyle accessories etc.They have also obtained registration of trademark logo in 1998 in Pakistan.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE CASEOn Oct 9, 2009 filled a complaint against AGIOn Oct 14, 2009 CCP asked the complainants some supportive documents and answers of a list of questions within 10 daysOn Oct 16, 2009 an identical response was submitted on behalf of both complainants.Thereafter, pursuant to these complaints, CCP appointed enquiry officers and initiated an enquiry under section 37 of the ordinance into the allegation of Deceptive marketing practices specifically fraudulent use of a trade mark.On 28 Oct, 2009 copies of complaints were sent to AGI for soliciting its comments but both the letters were returned on account address not traceable.Since the address was provided by the complainants, verification of address was sought from the complainants.On Dec 22, 2009 complaints were again sent through fax and through carrier. This time respondent received the complaint.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE CASEOn Jan 06, 2010 Respondent filed identical answer to both the complains. He said that AGI is not a registered firm rather a small business under sole proprietorship. He added that he doesnt know about such type of special laws and he had no intentions to deceive any person or company in the world. However he is now ready to apologies on his act and to he is agree to amend the changes in his website accordingly.After analyzing both complaints and the response from AGI., enquiry officers produce a report on 17 May, 2010 which states that although the attitude of respondent may appear to be innocent and ignorant but ignorance of law can be of no excuse. Therefore, in view of the above facts, images of the websites of the respondent and clear admission of the Respondent, there is a violation of section 10 (1) of the ordinance and in particular clause (a), (d) of subsection (2) of section 10 of the ordinance, on part of the respondent.By using the precedent of Zong case, Chairperson of CCP Rahat Kaunain Hassan imposed a token penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and AGI was warned that if they do the same in future than a strict action will be taken by CCP