Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Mahaan Foods Ltd & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Calpro Specialities Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
F.A.O. (Comm) No. 69 of 2021; Cm Appl No. 47784 of 2019
Decided On : 14-07-2021
Virender Goswami, Advocate, Soni Singh, Advocate, Shamik Saha, Advocate, Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate
Termination of Trademark License Agreements and execution of a new assignment deed invalidated the respondent's claim.
Headnote:
The respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, vacating the ex-parte interim order restraining the respondent from using the trademark 'SUPER MAHAAN'. The Trademark License Agreements, which formed the basis of the respondent's claim, were terminated by the licensor, and a new assignment deed was executed in favor of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, vacating the ex-parte interim order restraining the respondent from using the trademark 'SUPER MAHAAN'. The Trademark License Agreements, which formed the basis of the respondent's claim, were terminated by the licensor, and a new assignment deed was executed in favor of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were set aside as the Trademark License Agreements were terminated by the licensor, and a new assignment deed was executed in favor of the appellant.
Issues: Validity of the respondent's claim based on terminated Trademark License Agreements and a new assignment deed executed in favor of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The termination of the Trademark License Agreements and the execution of a new assignment deed in favor of the appellant invalidated the respondent's claim, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. Pending application also stand closed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - This appeal is filed against the order dated 09.10.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Saket Court, South-East District, New Delhi.
1.1. To be noted, via the impugned order, the respondent/defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed, and the ex-parte interim order dated 22.08.2019, as corrected by the order dated 23.08.2019, whereby, the respondent/defendant was restrained from using the impugned trademark "SUPER MAHAAN" was vacated.
1.2. Aggrieved by this, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred the instant appeal.
2. To be noted, it was the stand of the respondent/defendant in the suit pending before the trial court, that, it was claiming rights qua the impugned trademark "SUPER MAHAAN", based on Trademark License Agreements dated 07.05.2019 and 16.10.2019, executed in its favour, by one, Ms. Rhea Goyal.
2.1. It is not in dispute that the said Trademark License Agreements, which were executed by Ms. Rhea Goyal in favour of the respondent/defendant, were founded on an assignment deed dated 16.11.2015 and a gift deed dated 01.06.2015, executed in her favour by her father Mr. Rajiv Goyal.
2.2. At the hearing held before us on 05.05.2021, we had recorded that [something which had been brought to our notice previously on 09.03.2021, by the counsel for the appellants i.e., the original plaintiffs], the Trademark Licence Agreements, dated 07.05.2019 and 16.10.2019, were terminated by Ms. Rhea Goyal vide communication dated 04.03.2021. A copy of this communication was shown to us on 05.05.2021 [See page 939 of the paper book.]. The said communication was, admittedly, addressed, by Ms. Rhea Goyal, inter alia, to the respondent/defendant, and its director, Mr. Ayush Aggarwal. 2.3. On 05.05.2021, the respondent/defendant was represented by Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. On that date Mr. Chauhan had stepped into the shoes of Mr. Imtiyaz and Mr. Abhishek Kumar. Although, the revocation of Trademark License Agreements was brought to the notice of Mr. Imtiyaz and Mr. Abhishek Kumar on 09.03.2021, Mr. Chauhan, who as indicated above, appeared on 05.05.2021, conveyed to us that he had no instructions in the matter.
2.4. Given this position, we had stayed the operation of the orders impugned in the above-captioned appeal.
2.5. Today, Mr. Chauhan has confirmed that the Trademark Licence Agreements dated 07.05.2019 and 16.10.2019 were, in fact, terminated by Ms. Rhea Goyal vide communication dated 04.03.2021.
2.6. Furthermore, we may record that the appellants have taken a stand before us that, on that very date i.e., 04.03.2021, an assignment deed was executed in favour of appellant no. 2 i.e., Mr. Aditya Goyal by Ms. Rhea Goyal concerning the trademark in issue i.e., SUPER MAHAAN.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Chauhan says that he cannot but accept the position that the impugned orders cannot be defended. In other words, even according to Mr. Chauhan, the appeal would have to be allowed, and the impugned orders would logically have to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly.
4. Before we conclude, we may only record that, there is an error which has crept in the order dated 09.03.2021. In paragraph 2 [1] of the said order wherein there is a reference to the assignment deed dated 16.11.2015, it has been erroneously adverted to as a "registered" assignment deed, and likewise in paragraph 3 [2] , it has been erroneously noted that the instruments referred to in paragraph 2 of the very same order [i.e. the assignment deed dated 16.11.2015 and the gift deed dated 01.06.2015], had been executed in the favour of the respondent/defendant by Ms. Rhea Goyal.
4.1. The correct position is indicated by us hereinabove, which is, that the unregistered assignment deed dated 16.11.2015 and the gift deed dated 01.06.2015, even according to the respondent/defendant, had been executed by Mr. Rajiv Goyal in the favour Ms. Rhea Goyal. As noted above, Mr. Rajiv Go
