The case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) Vs. Massey Ferguson Corp (MFC) revolves around the doctrine of naked licensing—where a trademark owner allegedly fails to exercise quality control over a licensed brand, leading to possible abandonment of trademark rights. TAFE, which has used the Massey Ferguson (MF) brand in India since 1960, argued that MFC did not supervise or enforce quality standards over its products for over 60 years, effectively abandoning its trademark in India. MFC countered that it remained the legal owner and had conducted sporadic quality checks.

The Madras High Court found prima facie evidence of naked licensing, noting that MFC’s lack of enforcement may amount to abandonment. To prevent disruption, the Court maintained the status quo, allowing TAFE to continue using the MF brand until the final trial determines ownership and licensing rights. This case is a landmark in Indian trademark law, addressing the consequences of long-term non-supervision in licensing agreements.

• Factual Background of Proceedings:
  • TAFE: A prominent Indian manufacturer of tractors and agricultural equipment, which has used the Massey Ferguson (MF) brand in India since 1960 under various agreements with MFC.
  • MFC: A US-based corporation that owns the MF trademarks globally and claims to have only licensed their use to TAFE.
• Longstanding Business Relationship:
  • A Joint Venture (JV) Agreement was signed in 1960, followed by multiple licensing agreements.
  • Over six decades, TAFE used and built the MF brand in India, developing infrastructure, dealer networks, and technological know-how.
• Termination of Agreements & Legal Dispute:
  • A Standstill Agreement (2014–2019, renewed in 2019) restricted TAFE from increasing its shareholding in AGCO (MFC’s parent company).
  • In April 2024, MFC unilaterally terminated the trademark licensing agreements, asserting its ownership rights.
  • TAFE challenged the termination, arguing that MFC had abandoned its trademark in India by failing to exercise quality control over the brand.
  • TAFE sought an interim injunction to prevent MFC from interfering with its continued use of the MF trademarks.
• TAFE’s Argument: MFC Has Abandoned the MF Trademark in India:
  • TAFE claimed that MFC’s failure to exercise quality control over its MF-branded products for over 60 years resulted in abandonment of trademark rights.
  • The key points raised were:
    • MFC did not enforce any quality control over TAFE’s tractors and agricultural equipment in India.
    • TAFE has independently built the MF brand’s reputation in India through innovation, manufacturing, and customer service without any direct involvement from MFC.
    • Public Perception: Farmers, distributors, and consumers associate MF-branded tractors solely with TAFE, proving that MFC’s role has diminished.
    • MFC never directly manufactured or sold MF-branded tractors in India, further weakening its claim to active ownership.
• MFC’s Counterarguments: No Abandonment, Quality Control Was Exercised:
  • MFC countered TAFE’s naked licensing claim by arguing that:
  • MFC is the registered proprietor of the MF trademark in India, and TAFE was only a permitted user under various licensing agreements.
  • Periodic quality control checks were conducted, including:
    • Inspections at TAFE’s manufacturing plants.
    • Correspondence regarding product modifications.
    • Opposition filings against third-party trademark applications to protect MF brand integrity.
  • TAFE cannot claim abandonment while simultaneously relying on the licensing agreements.
  • Under the doctrine of election, TAFE cannot challenge MFC’s ownership while enjoying benefits under the trademark license.

Court’s Analysis and Findings on Naked Licensing:
The Court conducted a detailed examination of whether MFC exercised sufficient quality control and made the following observations: Prima Facie Case for Naked Licensing.The Court acknowledged that MFC failed to demonstrate continuous and effective quality control over MF-branded products in India. Only sporadic instances of quality control efforts were presented by MFC, which the Court found insufficient to disprove abandonment​.TAFE used the MF brand continuously since 1960 without any interference from MFC, indicating an implicit acquiescence to TAFE’s control over brand quality.

Acquiescence & Abandonment:The Court noted that MFC had:Never directly manufactured MF-branded tractors in India. Allowed TAFE to use the mark without active supervision. Failed to specify quality control measures in termination notices—suggesting that quality was never a genuine concern​.Public Interest Consideration:The Court emphasized the importance of public reliance on TAFE’s MF-branded tractors:TAFE employs over 5,600 workers and indirectly supports 1.6 million livelihoods. Millions of Indian farmers use MF-branded tractors sold by TAFE, and disrupting their service would have severe economic consequences.


Final Decision:
Status Quo in Favor of TAFE.The Court did not conclusively rule that MFC abandoned the trademark but found strong prima facie evidence that it failed to exercise quality control.It maintained the status quo, allowing TAFE to continue using the MF brand in India until the full trial determines ownership and licensing rights.The Court rejected MFC’s request for an immediate injunction, stating that the issue required full trial consideration with oral and documentary evidence.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment on Naked Licensing:
Sporadic quality checks are insufficient—trademark owners must consistently enforce quality control to maintain ownership.Long-term non-enforcement can be construed as abandonment, especially when the licensee builds brand goodwill independently.Public interest considerations played a significant role in favoring TAFE.Indian trademark law does not explicitly recognize naked licensing as abandonment, but courts may interpret prolonged non-supervision as a ground for loss of rights.

Conclusion:
Trademark abandonment through non-use is a significant issue in long-term licensing relationships.Public perception & reliance on a brand’s Indian user may override foreign ownership claims.Preliminary injunctions favoring longstanding users may be granted to prevent irreparable harm.
The outcome of the final trial will determine whether TAFE secures ownership over MF trademarks in India or MFC reclaims its exclusive rights.

Case Title: Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited Vs Massey Ferguson Corp
Date of Order: February 5, 2025
Case Number: C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.190 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:319
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Abdul Quddhose

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539