Judge Chan-Chan Paegar of the Commercial Court yesterday released the written copy of his oral ruling in the “pop drink” trademark infringement lawsuit levied against Housseni Kessel, a Lebanese businessman.
Paegar’s decision was based on pressure from the Supreme Court convincing him to release the written copy.
The decision now gives BAF Trading Corporation the opportunity to begin its appeal process against Judge Paegar’s August 5 judgment.
The Supreme Court intervention came following a protest by Cllr. Tiawan Gongloe, the lead counsel for BAF Trading Corporation, seeking Paegar to rule in its favor.
The judgment was intended to declare BAF as the legitimate owner of the pop drink trademark, a request the judge denied.
Besides, Paegar assured the parties (H.K. Enterprise and BAF) of his plan to deliver the hardcopy of his ruling within three days, a promise he did not fulfill until the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Housseni Kessel owns the H.K. Enterprise, the company at the center of the trademark infringement allegation.
The complaint that prompted the Supreme Court’s intervention claimed that by withholding his written judgment, Judge Paegar was hindering BAF’s decision to appeal the judgment.
They argued that without the hardcopy it was impossible for BAF’s lawyers to obtain their appeal bond and notice of completion of the appeal as prerequisites to taking it to the Supreme Court.
Further to that complaint, Gongloe alleged that he had written Judge Paegar informing him about the delays he had caused their case by refusing to produce his written version containing his final judgment which, according to Gongloe, was making it impossible for him to file the Bill of Exception and undertake the other necessary legal steps to complete the appeal process.
“A copy of the said self-explanatory letter was served on the two other judges, one of them Chief Judge Eva Mappy Morgan,” Cllr. Gongloe said in his complaint.
“The refusal of Judge Paegar to produce his written ruling and judgment up to and including the time of filling of this complaint has been impossible and impracticable for me to file the Bill of Exception and to perform all the other necessary duties to complete the appeal process, which is tantamount to my client being denied his right to an appeal in this particular case,” Gongloe said.