Final Award in ICC Case No. 8445
Panel of Arbitration
XXVI Y.B. Comm. Arb. 167 (2001)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Claimant (plaintiff) and defendant entered a know-how/technology licensing contract. The contract granted the claimant a nonexclusive license to produce and sell six “contract products” in exchange for a series of payments by the claimant to the defendant. The contract obliged the defendant to provide the claimant with documentation within three months of entering into the agreement. The contract contained a clause requiring the parties to make efforts to settle any disputes amicably between themselves. The contract also contained clauses providing for International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration and for the application of Indian law. The claimant made an initial payment to the defendant, but a disagreement arose between the parties about the documents the defendant needed to provide to the claimant. The claimant sent a letter to the defendant, complaining about the lack of documentation and suggesting termination with compensation paid by the defendant. The defendant sent a letter to the claimant restricting the claimant’s use of the brand name. The claimant responded by reiterating its desire to terminate the agreement with compensation. The claimant initiated this arbitration in Zurich, Switzerland. The claimant also initiated a legal suit in a local court in India, but the Indian court dismissed the suit pending the outcome of the arbitration in Switzerland. The defendant argued that the claimant failed to settle the dispute amicably as required by the contract and that the arbitration was thereby premature.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.