Case No. 81/2012. Case: M/s. Official Beverages Vs M/s. SAB Miller India and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
|Case No. 81/2012
|For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate
|Ashok Chawla (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T), Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
|Intellectual Property Rights Act
|May 31, 2013
|Competition Commision of India
The present information has filed by M/s. Official Beverages (hereinafter referred to as 'Informant') against M/s. SAB Miller India (hereinafter referred to as 'Opposite Party 1') and 12 other entities (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Opposite Parties') alleging abuse of dominance by the OP1 as well as cartelization amongst Opposite Parties. As per the information, the Informant was engaged in manufacturing and selling soda, packaged drinking water and also running a franchisee business in Andhra Pradesh. OP1 was owner of trademark Hayward's 5000 and FOSTERS and carrying business of marketing of products manufactured under the trademark Hayward's 5000 and FOSTERS. The Informant and OP1 entered into a franchise agreement on 01.03.2009, valid for a period of three years, further renewable by mutual consent, by which OP1 granted license to the informant for manufacture of packaged drinking water, sparkling water, packaged soda etc. in pet bottles of different sizes, under trademark of the OP1, (hereinafter referred to as 'Products') in Andhra Pradesh. OPs (2 to 13) were clearing and forwarding agents for the products manufactured by the Informant, under the trademark of OP1. The Informant entered into various agreements with OPs 2 to 13, to market and sell the products in Andhra Pradesh.
As per clause 5 of the Franchise Agreement, the Informant was to ensure that raw materials used for manufacture of products were of standard specifications and quality, as provided by statutory and regulatory authorities from time to time and get the products so manufactured quality tested as per guidelines issued by OP1 and Bureau of Indian Standards. Any failure on part of Informant to manufacture products not confirming to quality standards was to be construed as breach of Agreement with a right to OP1 to terminate the Agreement without any costs or damages to Informant.
Further, as per clause 10 of the Agreement, Informant was required to pay Rs. 45,00,000 per annum as royalty and brand promotion fee to OP1. The first year royalty was to be paid in equal quarterly instalments of Rs. 11,25,000 and royalty of subsequent years was to be mutually agreed before commencement of each financial year. Informant was obligated to provide quarterly audited details of accounts to OP1 and allow OP1 to inspect books of accounts for determining quantum of sales. Informant stated that it had also paid Rs. 64,00,000 as royalty and brand promotion fee...
To continue readingRequest your trial