Exclusive distribution agreement / Interim award requested by manufacturer for the issuance of an injunction ordering the other party to discontinue to use tradenames and trademarks / Request rejected by Arbitral Tribunal

[The dispute between Claimant (a Venezuelan Company) and Defendant (a French Company) arises out of an Exclusive Authorized Distribution Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent, who manufactures and markets certain electronic data processing equipment and related products, granted the power and authority to the Claimant to act as the Exclusive Authorized Distributor of Respondent in the Republic of Venezuela for the hardware, software and firmware products defined in the Agreement. The arbitration took place in Paris.]

'The Agreement was entered into by the Parties for reasons which were uncomplementary. The Claimant "was looking for a computation company that would guarantee the supply of data processing equipment proper to its needs". These needs encompassed the "desire to make ABC equipment compatible with the potential partner's own equipment". The Respondent "was interested in Claimant as it corresponded to its approach of the Venezuelan market". The Respondent, in other words, saw an opportunity to sell its "hardware at prices which had been discussed and to have access to the logistic facilities of the Group" to which Claimants belonged. Thus it may be stated that the problems arose since, from the beginning, the Parties had diverse interests.

Nevertheless, the contract was signed and for two years efforts were made to have the relationship bear fruit. However, this was not to be and the result of all these efforts is this arbitration.

Interim Award

The Tribunal has determined not to issue an interim award as sought by Respondent (i) to discontinue the use of the name of... for its business and change the name of its company to a name which cannot be confused with the name of ...; (ii) to transfer to Respondent all trademarks and other industrial property contractually identified by Respondent as proprietary which have been filed for registration by Claimant or otherwise to conceal any such filings.

Thus it follows that the Tribunal did not issue an interim award as requested by Respondent directing Claimants to pay to Respondent a penalty of one hundred thousand French Francs per day from the date of the interim award until such time as it shall have complied with the interim award.

(Reasons for this determination by the Tribunal are set forth in the Tribunal's Order of ..., appended hereto as Exhibit Z).

Exhibit Z:

"The Tribunal also examines the arguments given by the parties in the Request for Arbitration, the Reply and Counterclaim, the Reply to the Counterclaim, as well as during the... meeting, taking into account the urgency of any request for conservative measure, and noted that:

1) The applicant did not present a very strong prima facie case.

2) It has not been clearly shown that the damage, potential or actual, would be very serious for the applicant if the measure is not adopted.

3) [It has not been clearly shown that] Claimant/Defendant in the counterclaim is likely to hinder the course of justice by disposing of the name of Respondent any trademark or other industrial property so as to defeat the applicant's counterclaim.

Therefore, the Tribunal found that the request was not based in law nor in fact and, consequently, decided not to grant the measure applied by the Defendant in the claim/ plaintiff in the counterclaim without prejudice to what it may eventually decide with respect to the substance of the case."'