Trademark dispute: CCP slaps Rs1 million fine for deceptive marketing

Directs Tara Crop Sciences to stop using ‘Tara’ brand name


Our Correspondent June 23, 2015
The CCP directed Tara Crop Sciences to ensure that its franchise network is renamed to make it perfectly clear that its business has no connection with Agritech Limited. PHOTO: REUTERS

ISLAMABAD: The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has imposed a penalty of Rs1 million on Tara Crop Sciences Private Limited for indulging in deceptive marketing practices by using brand name of another company, Agritech Limited, to sell its products.

The antitrust watchdog also directed Tara Crop Sciences to stop the solitary use of term ‘Tara’ in its franchise network named ‘Tara Zarai Markaz’.

Earlier, the CCP initiated an inquiry after receiving a complaint from Agritech Limited which alleged that its brand Tara was being used fraudulently and illegally by Tara Crop Sciences to market its products and business.

The company was accused of disseminating misleading information, which could harm business interests of Agritech Limited, according to the CCP.

The CCP enquiry established that Tara Crop Sciences has violated the Competition Act by indulging in deceptive marketing practices. Commenting on the trademark dispute between the two companies, the CCP said granting of proprietary rights in intellectual property remains the sole domain of the Intellectual Property Organisation and the CCP cannot make any determination in this regard.

The CCP’s mandate was limited to the protection of registered trademarks only. The commission, however, found Tara Crop Sciences violating Section 10, in addition to disseminating false and misleading information by using Agritech Limited’s brand Tara in its franchise network.

The CCP directed Tara Crop Sciences to ensure that its franchise network is renamed to make it perfectly clear that its business has no connection with Agritech Limited. It has sought a compliance report within a month from the Tara Group.

Tara Crop Sciences is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. Agritech is a fertiliser and chemical manufacturing company and is engaged in the production of urea phosphate and allied products.

Tara Group’s response

In its written response to the CCP, the Tara Group stipulated that the complaint is not maintainable as a civil suit regarding the same matter was currently under adjudication before the additional district judge, Lahore.

The company also denied violation of the CCP Act, asserting that it was a prior user of the term Tara, as evident from the NTN certificate obtained for its company Tara Packages.

It stressed that the complainant’s registered trademarks are Tara DAP, Tara Urea and Tara MOP and that the individual trademark Tara has not been registered by them and is therefore not protected. The Tara Group said Tara Zarai Markaz is used exclusively for the sale of pesticides by the company.

It also clarified that the logo Tara Zarai Markaz is entirely different from that of Agritech Limited and argued that an ordinary consumer – a farmer – could easily distinguish between the two.

The Tara Group concluded that approximately 200 outlets of Tara Zarai Markaz were already in operation and these would only be engaged in the sale of pesticides.

It said it had strictly restrained their franchises from selling or stocking any product produced by Agritech Limited.

However, the CCP did not accept the company’s views and slapped a fine of Rs1 million.

On its part, Agritech said it had launched Tara brand in 2006 and invested Rs87.1 million to get the brand recognised among farmers and dealers. The trademarks Tara Urea, Tara DAP and Tara MOP are registered with the Trademarks Registry.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 23rd, 2015.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ