with the first defendant/Exide US, which is the world‟s largest and oldest battery manufacturer, and that Exide India was trying to take advantage of Exide US‟ goodwill and reputation. In various placed in the pleadings, Exide US emphasizes that it was the originator of the word EXIDE and owned registered trademarks; it also submits that Chloride Electrical Storage Syndicate (a UK company later known as Chloride Group Plc) had entered into a series of agreements with the Electrical storage Batteries Co (ESBC, i.e., Exide US‟ predecessor) in 1891, 1892 and 1895. The last of these, the “Harvey Agreement” provided for interchange of technical information between the two companies and conferred reciprocal rights in regard to patents and commercial exploitation on exclusive geographical basis. Chloride enjoyed these rights exclusively on geographical basis for UK and the British Empire. That document was produced as Ex. DW-1/28. It is therefore contended that Chloride‟s use later in India, was really for and on behalf of Exide US. The defendants also contended, in the suit that a subsequent development, by way of decree of the US District Court, on 24.11.1947, in anti trust proceedings, resulted in Exide US being restrained from proceeding with the Harvey agreement. It also had to desist participating in Chloride‟s management and was divested of the rights as a shareholder. This, coupled with India‟s restrictive trade policies, which curtailed foreign investments, prevented its brand EXIDE and products under that mark, being sold in India, after 1960.
