Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.K. JAIN, J.
M/s. Pachranga International Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
WP (C) No. 6962 of 2013
Decided on : 08-11-2013
For the Appellant :Neeraj Grover and Megha Chandra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Joginder Sukhija, Yogesh Yogi, S.K. Bansal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expulsion of a partner must adhere to due process, and the use of trademarks in such cases should be clearly addressed in partnership deeds. Additionally, transactions involving the assignment of trademarks require valid authorization and genuine consideration.
Headnote:
Trademark Dispute - Partnership Deed - 1.4.1999 - Summary: The court discussed the partnership deed dated 1.4.1999, particularly Clause 12, which outlined the use of the trademark Pachranga International by the parties in the event of dissolution of the firm. The court analyzed the implications of the expulsion of a partner and its impact on the use of the trademark. The court also examined the assignment of the trademark and trade name to a third party and the validity of the transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, and respondent No.2, a partner, were in a dispute over the use of the trademark Pachranga International. The petitioner claimed that the respondent was expelled from the partnership and forfeited the right to the trademark, while the respondent disputed the expulsion and challenged the petitioner's right to the trademark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the expulsion of the partner was not proven, and the partnership deed did not clearly address the use of the trademark in the case of expulsion. The court also rejected the validity of the assignment of the trademark and trade name to the petitioner's wife.
Issues: The key issues were the validity of the expulsion of the partner, the interpretation of the partnership deed regarding the use of the trademark, and the validity of the assignment of the trademark and trade name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expulsion of a partner must follow due process, and in the absence of clear provisions in the partnership deed, the use of the trademark in such cases is not straightforward. The court also emphasized the need for valid authorization in transactions involving the assignment of trademarks.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of respondent No.2. The dismissal of the writ petition did not preclude the petitioner from pursuing its case in a civil suit.
JUDGMENT :
V.K. Jain, J.
CAV Nos.984-985/2013
Since learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2 has entered appearance, the caveats stand discharged.
CM No.15075/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.6962/2013 & CM No.15074/2013 (Stay)
Shri Rajinder Dhingra, a Director of the petitioner-Company and his father late Shri Asa Nand Dhingra entered into a partnership vide partnership deed dated 1.1.1983 and started the business of processing, marketing and manufacturing pickles and allied goods. The said firm adopted the trademark PIP in relation to its business. In the year 1984, Shri Chander Mohan Dhingra, brother of Shri Rajinder Dhingra and partner/proprietor of respondent No.2, M/s. Pachranga International (Chander Group), joined the said partnership firm. A partnership deed dated 1.4.1992 was executed amongst the above-referred three persons. Clause 10 and clause 12 of the partnership deed dated 1.4.1999 to the extent they are relevant read as under:
"10. THAT if any partner or partners shall at any time during pendency of the Partnership commit or be guilty of a flagrant breach of his duties or infringes or contravenes or violates any of the terms of this partnership, the majority of partners have a right to except such partner or partners by tendering a notice in writing and publish in the name of an as against such person and thereafter such partner or partners shall cease to be a partner or partners and the remaining partners shall be at liberty to form a fresh partnership and to carry on the same business. That on the expulsion, of such expelled partner or other partners shall be entitled for their capital and the profits till date.
.......
12. xxxx
THAT in case of the dissolution of the firm, the GOODWILL of the firm will be shared equally by the parties of the second and third part and the party of the first part will not take any share of the goodwill of the firm. If the GOODWILL amount is not settled amicably on dissolution by both the parties, both the parties are at liberty to use the name Pachranga International and use the Registered trademark of (PIP) which will read as:
I) Pachranga International (Rajinder Group) And
II) Pachranga International (Chander Group)
This has been agreed into by all the parties, so that no outsider may make use of the above firm."
2. The case of the petitioner is that since Shri Chander Mohan Dhingra started running a parallel business under the name of a company Pachranga Syndicate Private Limited, incorporated in the year 1994 and got engaged in the business of the said Company, he was expelled from the partnership vide notice dated 15.2.2001 and thereafter the said partnership continued between Shri Asa Nand Dhingra and Shri Rajinder Dhingra. However, on 18.7.2001, they promoted and incorporated the petitioner-Company, Pachranga International Private Limited.
3. This is also the case of the petitioner that a Power of Attorney was executed by Shri Chander Dhingra and Shri Asa Nand Dhingra in favour of Shri Rajinder Dhingra on 13.7.1985 and in exercise of the power conferred upon him, Shri Rajinder Dhingra by way of an assignment deed dated 26.3.2002 assigned the trademark PIP and the trade name Pachranga International to his wife Shrimati Sharda Dhingra.
4. On 24.2.2005, the petitioner applied for registration of the trademark Pachranga, claiming user since July, 2001 and the said registration was granted after advertising the same in the Trade Marks Journal. On 3.4.2006, the respondent NO.2 filed an application seeking removal/rectification of the aforesaid trademark. Vide impugned order dated 12.7.2013, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) allowed the said application and directed removal of the trademark Pachranga International in Class 29. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.
5. It would be seen from a perusal of Clause 12 of the Partnership Deed dated 1.4.1999 that in the event of dissolution of the firm, the
