Riddle me this: Manufacturer A, as part of its settlement obligation after losing a Trademark legal dispute on its original branding, is supposed to adhere strictly to a stipulated branding design. The said Manufacturer sells through an appointed distributor who continued to advertise their products with the original (disputed) branding. When confronted, their lawyers said in their written reply that their clients cannot be responsible for the acts of third parties that takes place, especially where the same happens without their client’s knowledge or control. But that as may be, their client has a gesture of goodwill, taken steps to liaise with the said Distributor on the matter.
We do not have a law degree but a couple of questions do surface even as a layperson
1. Should an appointed distributor be considered a third party rather than a related party?
2. Does the Manufacturer not have a duty of care and responsibility (and not just out of goodwill) to ensure that
- all products with the disputed branding are withdrawn for distribution (after the stipulated grace period to do so)?
- their appointed distributor is expressly informed and made to conform with any legal settlement obligation relating to the Manufacturer’s product branding?
3. And in the event of breach of such legal settlement obligation by a Manufacturer’s appointed distributor, should the Manufacturer not be liable and held accountable for the breach?
And we are pretty sure the opposing lawyers will have something to say on this.
Comments
Post a Comment