The court clarified that exit from a partnership must consider associated rights to trademarks, which should include geographical limitations rather than full removal.

ORDER

The review petitioners, who trade under the name and style of “ANIL APPALAM & CHIPS”, had applied for registration of the following device mark:

Such registration was granted with effect from 20.11.1995 under Trade Mark No.687449 in Class 30. The first respondent herein filed a petition for rectification by removal of the impugned mark from the Register of Trade Marks. The said request for rectification was allowed by order dated 03.06.2013 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and such order is sought to be reviewed by the review petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that a partnership firm was constituted in the year 1993 by M/s.V.Pitchai, Kalimuthu and K.S.Raja. The said partnership firm underwent reconstitution when Kalimuthu and Pitchai retired in 1994 and 1997, respectively. Thereafter, R.Subbaya and S.Saravanadas joined the partnership firm on 01.04.1999. K.S.Raja (first respondent), R.Subbaya and S.Saravanadas retired thereafter on 14.07.2000, 05.11.2003 and 12.10.2005, respectively. According to learned counsel, the two review petitioners joined the partnership firm on 19.04.2007 as reflected in the Register of Firms.

3. By referring to partnership release deed dated 14.07.2000, learned counsel submitted that the first respondent exited the partnership after receiving his share of profit and gave an undertaking that neither he nor his legal heirs have any rights in relation to the partnership firm. In particular, he pointed out that even the liabilities of the partnership firm were required to be borne only by the continuing partners. Once the first respondent exited the partnership firm, learned counsel submits that the said respondent does not have any right in respect of any of the assets of the partnership firm, including the trade mark.

4. By referring to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that it was erroneously recorded therein that the review petitioners wrongfully obtained the registration of the trade mark. Therefore, he submits that the order contains an error apparent and that interference is warranted.

5. As regards the contention that the review petition is barred by limitation, by referring to the order dated 18.09.2017 of this Court in W.P.No.161 of 2016, learned counsel submits that the review petitioners were permitted to file the review petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Since the order copy was received on 02.11.2017, learned counsel submits that the review petition was filed within the time limit fixed in the said order.

6. In response to these contentions, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the order dated 18.09.2017 specifies in paragraph 3 thereof that the review petition should be filed within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order. While acknowledging that paragraph 2 thereof refers to the two week period running from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, he contends that limitation should be reckoned from the date of issuance of the order and not from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

7. Without prejudice, as regards the merits of the matter, learned counsel refers to the recitals of partnership release deed dated 14.07.2000 to contend that the important preconditions for executing the release deed were that the first respondent would be entitled to carry on business under the name “ANIL APPALAM & CHIPS” in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and that the counter parties would file an appropriate application for amendment before the sales tax authorities in relation thereto. By