Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
K.L. Rajakrishnan
Versus
Parthas Textiles, Kottayam
Tmsa No. 1 of 1996
Decided On : 11-07-1996
The appellant, a registered proprietor of a trademark, challenged the order of the Registrar of Trademarks, which deleted his name from the Register and substituted the names of the surviving partners of the firm. The appellant contended that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the Registrar's order, holding that the appellant had no right to the trademark since he had retired from the partnership. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Registrar had acted within his jurisdiction and had not violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to use the trademark as per the deed of retirement, and that the Registrar should not have interfered with the appellant's right to use the trademark.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a registered proprietor of a trademark, challenged the order of the Registrar of Trademarks, which deleted his name from the Register and substituted the names of the surviving partners of the firm. The appellant contended that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the Registrar's order, holding that the appellant had no right to the trademark since he had retired from the partnership.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Registrar had acted within his jurisdiction and had not violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to use the trademark as per the deed of retirement, and that the Registrar should not have interfered with the appellant's right to use the trademark.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar of Trademarks acted within his jurisdiction in deleting the appellant's name from the Register and substituting the names of the surviving partners of the firm? 2. Whether the Registrar violated the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to use the trademark as per the deed of retirement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Registrar of Trademarks acted within his jurisdiction in deleting the appellant's name from the Register and substituting the names of the surviving partners of the firm. 2. The Registrar did not violate the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. 3. The appellant is entitled to use the trademark as per the deed of retirement.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Registrar had acted within his jurisdiction and had not violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to use the trademark as per the deed of retirement, and that the Registrar should not have interfered with the appellant's right to use the trademark.
1. First respondent in T.M.A. No. 4 of 1996, on the file of this Court, is the appellant before use.
2. The material facts which led to the filing of this Trade Mark Second Appeal are as follows:-
On 17-8-1978, a partnership was constituted by (1) K.L.Parthasarathy, (2) K.L.Rajakrishnan, (3) K.L.Rajendran, (4) K.L.Sivakumar, (5) K.L.Nagalakshmi and (6) S.Nagarajulu and it was doing textile business under the name and style Partha Textiles, Kottayam. Thereafter, an application was made before the second respondent for registration of the trade mark on 30-11-1978. A Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark was issued on 28-2-83 as follows:-
"Certificate that the Trade Mark of which a representation is annexed hereto, has been registered in Part A of the register in the name(s) of K.L.Parthasarathy, K.L. Veeriah Alias Mohanraj, K.L.Rajakrishnan, K.L.Rajendran, K.L.Nagalakshmi, K.L.Sivakumar and K.L. Indumathi, trading as Parthas Textiles and also trading as Parthas, K.K.Road, Post Box No.119, Kottayam in class 24 under No. 343228 as of the date 30th November 1978 in respect of Textile piece goods for sale in the State of Tamil Nadu and Kerala." *
It may be noted that K.L. Veeriah Alias Mohanraj was not a partner in the partnership deed dated 17-8-1978. Subsequently, the partnership deed dated 17-8-1978 was reconstituted on 1-4-1979 with the following partners (1) M. Sreenivasa Reddiar, (2) K.L. Parthasarathy by Power of attorney holder K.L. Veeriah Mohanraj, (3) K.L. Veeriah Mohanraj, (4) K.L.Rajakrishnan, (5) K.L.Rajendran, (6) K.L.Sivakumar, (7) K.L. Indumathi, (8) K.L.Nagalakshmi, (9) S. Varadarajulu, (10) Viswanathan, (11) Rajakrishnan, and (12) J.Ramachandru Ammal. Even though the firm was reconstituted on 1-4-1979, the same was not intimated to the authorities under the Trade Marks Act, and the partnership deed also did not make mention of the application for registering the trade mark. It is also worthwhile to note that in the reconstituted firm. S. Nagarajulu expressed his desire to retire and he retired on 1-4-1979. Even though the application was made on 30-11-1978 to have the mark registered, the certificate was actually issued only on 28-2-1983. By that time, the firm was already reconstituted, and there were 12 partners on that date. After the partnership deed dated 1-4-1979, the firm was again reconstituted on 1-4-1985, 1-4-1986 and 1-4-1988. By these deeds, various changes were made in the constitution of the firm. But there was no change in the trade mark registration and the same continued as before. On 1-4-1988, two sister of the appellant, namely, K.L. Indumathi and K.L. Nagalakshmi expressed their desire to retire from the firm, and the deed dated 1-4-1988 itself was executed after their retirement. In the reconstituted deed of 1-4-1988, it is further seen that the appellant who was originally a partner as per deed dated 1-4-1979, had retired and thereafter he was reinducted as per the deed dated 1-4-1988. On 30-10-1990, the appellant, his mother and brothers gave notice of retirement from the firm with effect from 31-1-1991 and sought closure of accounts as on 30-1-1991. After receipt of the notice, the firm was again reconstituted on 1-2-1991 between the surviving partners, which was countersigned by the retiring partners. In that deed dated 1-2-1991, a provision we made for the continued use of the business name Parthas Textiles. Clause 1 of that Deed reads as follows :-
"The name and style of the partnership shall continue to be PARTHAS TEXTILES with its principal place of business at Kottayam. New places of business may be opened at places where there are no existing business under the name Parthas/Parthas Textiles. It is specifically agreed to that the retiring partners can continue to use the name of Parthas/Parthas Textiles wherever there are existing businesses under the name Parthas/Parthas Textiles and also start any business under the name Parthas/Parthas Textiles wherever there are no e
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
