Businessman and founder of Chitaitai Chemicals Terence Kare is embroiled in a legal battle with his former business partners over who owns the trademark and who has the right to use the company to market products they used to make and market together.
Both agree that the trademark is registered in Mr Kare’s name, but the company said this was an error as it should have been registered in the company’s name rather than in the name of an individual office holder at the time of the company. Mr Kare says that because the registration is in his name he owns the trademark.
The company is in the business of manufacturing industrial and household chemical products and claims as the company to own the trademarks. Mr Kare resigned from the company’s directorship after irreconcilable boardroom clashes and started a new company in the same line of business.
Following his resignation, Mr Kare decided to revoke his consent to the company’s use of what he considers as his own trademark, but his erstwhile business partners could not let go of the emblem, the driving cog of the business. He claimed to have sole and exclusive right to the trade mark at the centre of dispute.
After the fall out, Mr Kare has now approached the High Court seeking an order against the company now fronted by his former business partners to cease using the trademark.
In his High Court application, Mr Kare listed Chitaitai Chemicals as the respondent.
Mr Kare, in his court documents, pleaded that the certificate of registration specifically mentions the word, “Chitaitai”, which means “Firefly” in the English language. It is Mr Kare’s submission that he gave consent to the company to use his trademark when he was still a partner, but exercised his right to withdraw his consent on June 29 last year after he quit.
“I demanded the respondent to cease and desist from using my trade mark with immediate effect. The demand fell on deaf ears.”
He says the use of his trademark without his authority is a clear breach of his legal right to exclusive use of the trade mark, in respect of floor polish and other floor care products to the exclusion of everyone else and the company should be stopped from using it.
But the company represented by Mr Tinei Harrison counter argue that the application by Mr Kare is premised on fraud. He accuses Mr Kare of fraudulently registering the trademark under his name instead of the company.
“The applicant was a director and secretary of the respondent and had the duty to ensure that the trademark was registered in the name of the Respondent,” he argued.
“In the event that the applicant registered the trademark in his personal name, then it’s a fraud committed against the respondent.”
Mr Harrison further argues that the certificate states that Mr Kare’s name is included in its representative capacity as a director of the company. Both parties’ legal counsel have already filed their heads of arguments, ahead of the hearing of the dispute next week at the High Court.
SOURCE : THE HERALD
