Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar Of Trademarks Intellectual Property Office Building – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal challenges the refusal of trademark rights registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. the mou is not legally binding and cannot confer trademark rights. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 3. trademark is jointly owned; unilateral transfer is invalid due to insolvency. (Para 14 , 15 , 20) |
| 4. the court reaffirms the decision of the lower authority. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 20.08.2009, rejecting the request made by the appellant on Form TM-24 in respect of registered Trade Mark No.309327 in Class 30.
3.As per the MOU, the proprietor agreed to sell/transfer all the Franchise Agreement except the Agreements in Delhi and Madras to a proposed newly incorporated private limited company. The Proprietor was entitled to open any restaurant in India or abroad as per a family settlement and by virtue of the same, he wanted to transfer that right to use the name of “Dasaprakash” to the appellant Company. A sum of Rs.50 Lakhs along with 40% shareholding in the Company was given in favour of the propr
Trademark rights, being a family asset, cannot be transferred unilaterally; agreements made by an insolvent party are void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant No.1, as a lineal male descendant of late G.D. Rathi, was bound by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding (....
The transfer of trademarks was invalidated due to breach of conditions, resulting in automatic reversion of rights to UTO, emphasizing that acquiescence does not divest proprietary rights.
The court ruled that the transfer of trademarks was invalidated due to breach of conditions, leading to automatic reversion to the original owner, and that acquiescence does not divest proprietary ri....
Passing off of trade mark - Proprietary rights - Interim injunction - Appellant/defendant company, even though it has started using trade mark ‘AMPA’ only in 2018, has established substantial sales a....
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
