"1 | P a g eCase study: - Trop Nosh2 | P a g eContentsIntroduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3Trop Nosh and the special customer deal .................................................................................................... 5Competitor of Trop Nosh (Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd) .................................................................................... 6Law of intellectual property and competition .............................................................................................. 7Applicable law on competitor ....................................................................................................................... 8Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 9References ................................................................................................................................................... 113 | P a g eIntroductionTrop Nosh Pvt. Ltd is a fast food chain, which is operating in Darwin since the last 15 years, bythe name of “Trop Nosh”. They tried different recipes to attract the customers and employedvarious offers to make the customers select them as the first choice. On the other hand, anothernew company called Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd that is running the same business in competitionwith “Trop Nosh”. There are legal issues between these two companies, on the basis of the menuitem named “Sichuan Burger”, a Sichuan type chicken burger. Trop Nosh sells the particularburger type, wrapping it up with a paper along with an abbreviation “TNSB” written on thewrapping paper. Whereas Captain Chicken started selling the same kind of burger on the name of“Tropical Sichuan Burger”, which is wrapped up with the black paper and with “TSB” written onit. This in- turn affected the sale of Trop Nosh because customers got attracted to the new outlet ofCaptain Chicken?s (CC) Sichuan Burger. Sichuan Burger legally was the property of “TropNosh” but CC is selling it with another name. Hence, the Managing Director of Trosh Nosh istrying to find a legal section under which he can drag the CC for copying their product andselling it in the market. Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), AustralianIntellectual Property Law and associated case law, the Managing Director of Trop Nosh can finda suitable law under which he can file lawsuit against Caption Chicken Pvt. Ltd.4 | P a g eSource: Jones, (2015) 5 | P a g eTrop Nosh and the special customer dealTrop Nosh, a renowned fast food restaurant chain in Darwin, is running its culinary business forthe last 15 years, serving their customers with different kinds of foodstuffs like fried chicken,chips, chicken burger, and an express meal called wrapped salad. Throughout these 15 years,they have served people by satisfying tummies with healthy meals. Over the past 10 years, theyhave successfully developed and promoted their renowned menu item named “Sichuan Burger”,which is a Sichuan style spicy chicken burger served in a bright red box with TNSB written inblack on the lid (Cavitch, 2014). The product bears such importance that it had been therecommended choice of the tourist guides.There are different other products which “Trop Nosh” has promoted that made them famous inthe areas of Darwin and even among many of the tourists who visited the place. In the year 2015,Trop Nosh decided to provide some special offers to the customers while allowing them to enjoythe meal. The plan will further help the company to gain the engagement of few more customersin attraction to the special offers (Jones, 2015). Many people like their normal meals and now thecompany is trying to sell their heavy meal items by attracting the customers through specialoffers. In the month of August, they planned to launch the special offer meal and done promotionof the outlet. The product on which they offered special offer was Maxi- Size meal with whichthey can get “Special Customer Deal”.The Maxi- Size value was composed of a Burger wrapped and large chips with a large soft drinkwith it and the “special customer deal” was that the customer can buy a „mini-music player? byjust paying $1 extra for the meal. In attraction to the special deals offered by Trop Nosh, manycustomers approached the restaurant and inquired about the offer. From the enquiry of thecustomers it seems that some of the customers thought they could buy a cheap Mp3 player by 6 | P a g egetting the deal. But the actual facts about the “special customer deal” were that they wereoffering small pocket size radios for $1. Actually the manager thought that radios can also play music and it would be reasonable for thespecial offer they were offering to the customers. He ordered the radios from a Brazilian radiomanufacturing company without being concerned about the manufacturing quality of theproduct. The customers found the deals quite interesting and they bought the big size meal andgot that radio after paying an extra dollar for the meal. However, unfortunately, some of theradios were found defective and customers complained for that to Trop Nosh. They sufferedfrom skin burn because of the overheating problem of the radios. This somewhat affected thetrust of the customer towards Trop Nosh. Competitor of Trop Nosh (Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd)Now, Trop Nosh has a competitor in the market, that is selling the same kind of product andrunning a fast food restaurant. The name of the competitor was Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd. (CC)that has just opened three stores around Trop Nosh?s differently located stores in Darwin.Somewhere in the early dates of August 2015, the CEO of CC approached the managing directorof Trop Nosh for a deal regarding the rise in the prices of meal in the lunch hours i.e between12pm and 2 pm on the week days Monday to Friday (Wright, 2015).. The managing director ofTrop Nosh agreed with the deal and ordered the staff to implement the changes with the facilityand raise the rate of the products. These changes in the price would suddenly affect thecustomers who visit the place on daily basis. As the situation suggests, this would also affect thetrust of customers on Trop Nosh that the company gained sinc last fifteen years and the 7 | P a g eadvantage of that was taken by Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd. They got the chance to sell theirproducts to the people.Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd. launched a new outlet in which the advertisement of the productnamed “Tropical Sichuan Burger” started. It is same as the Trop Nosh offered the customers bythe name “Sichuan Burger”. The customers liked the outlet and there is a considerable rise in thenumber of customers on CC restaurants at every place in Darwin. This affected the sale of TropNosh over a couple of weeks and the managing director of Trop Nosh also bear an impact. Hebelieves that the customers have liked the new burger of CC very much and that is the mainreason behind the downturn that Trop Nosh is facing.Law of intellectual property and competitionOn the basis of the above case study suggests that the “Sichuan Burger” is the intellectualproperty of the Trop Nosh. Hence, in the reference of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010(Cth), Australian intellectual property law and associated case law, the managing director ofTrop Nosh is trying to find out a proper legal stand to file a lawsuit against CC (Captain ChickenPvt. Ltd) because of breach of law of intellectual property and associated case law. They haveinnovated the product and had been serving people from the last 10 years and they have certainclass of the people who loves this product to have it always.According to the intellectual property and antitrust right 2015, “Under what statutes, regulations,or case law are protected innovation rights conceded? Are there limitations on how IP rights maybe authorized, authorized, or generally exchanged? Do the rights surpass the base required by theWTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)?8 | P a g eProtected innovation Rights (IPRs) are conceded as per the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), thePatents Act 1990 (Cth), the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), the PlantBreeders Rights Act 1994 (Cth) and the Circuit Layouts Act 1989 (Cth), which are allgovernment statutes. The Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) entitles the proprietor of an enrolled trademark to reject othersfrom utilizing a significantly indistinguishable or misleadingly comparative imprint inconnection to merchandise and administrations that are the same as or like the products andadministrations in connection to which the imprint is enlisted. Enlistment may be restoredinconclusively by paying an expense like clockwork (Cavitch, 2014). . The Patents Act 1990 (Cth) stipends the proprietor of a standard patent the privilege to keepothers from manufacturing so as to abuse (counting, utilizing or offering) a protected creation,for a time of 20 years from the documenting or other need date (Neumann, 2014).. Licenses forpharmaceutical substances may be qualified for an expansion of term of close to five years. Theimposing business model in an advancement patent (which has a lower standard of creativitythan a standard patent and close to five cases) is for a time of 10 years.Applicable law on competitorTherefore, based on intellectual property and antitrust law, 2015, the Managing Director of TropNosh can register a lawsuit against Captain Chicken Pvt. Ltd, on account of the fact that theyhave manufactured the product which Trop Nosh has already been selling since with a registered "