Case Law – Commercial Agents
Judgment of February 6th 2014, the Maritime and Commercial High Court, case H-0054-1 Carl F. Myklestad v. Peter Bodum A/S.
The commercial agent had not breached the agency agreement or acted disloyally by the simultaneous trade of similar products and was entitled to compensation due to the principal’s termination of the agreement.
The court found that the total amount to be paid by Bodum to Myklestad should be set to NOK 1,600,000.
In determining the specific amount of compensation the court especially emphasized the substantial increase in revenue during the agency period, from approximately NOK 8.5 million in 2008 to NOK 30.7 million in 2010; the fact that from January 1st 2011 to the time of termination of the agency agreement on August 31st 2011 approximately NOK 24 million was turned over; and that the parties agreed that the total revenue made in the agency period was approximately NOK 71 million.
Furthermore emphasis is placed on the fact that it is undisputed by Bodum that at least the Kitchen-chain had acceded as a new customer during the period of Myklestad and the revenue made on the Kitchen-chain alone was approximately NOK 16 million during the agency period.
Finally emphasis is placed on the fact that it can be assumed that generally speaking Bodum had been satisfied with Myklestad as an agent to an extent that Erik Bjørstad was offered employment as country manager in Norway immediately after the termination of the agency agreement and according to the explanation given by Rikke Tøgersens, Bodum deeply regretted that Erik Bjørstad shortly after decided not to accept the position.
On the other hand the court has also attached importance to the fact that Bodum had, prior to the agency period, done business with many of the customers, and that the increase in revenue in 2011 was also due to massive marketing efforts made by Bodum, especially through tv-commercials.
Judgment of January 17th 2014, the Maritime and Commercial High Court, case V-0018-13 WiseCon A/S v. Wise Con AB.
After the termination of the sole-distributor agreement the defendant was no longer entitled to use the trademark, not even as the company name, which the plaintiff had the right to use. The plaintiff had breached § 1.3 in the sole-distributor agreement by having concluded a “group agreement” with another market player, prior to the termination of the agreement, which meant that the defendant had suffered a loss, which he was entitled to set-off against damages claimed by the plaintiff.