2013 (11) TMI 1139 - AT - Central Excise

Ownership of trademark Waiver of Pre-deposit - Multiple companies of the appellant lead the revenue in dark to reach the conclusion as to the use of the brand name by the appellant Held that - Appellant directed to deposit Rupees Thirty Lacs as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the deposit to be waived till the disposal registry is directed to link the appeal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Ownership of trademark, confusion in names, pre-deposit order, registration dispute

Ownership of trademark:
The judgment revolves around the ownership of a brand name by the appellant, specifically focusing on the Deed of Dissolution of partnership dated 7th April 1990, which did not clarify the ownership of the trademark by the appellant in 1976 or 1979. The confusion caused by the appellant using different names like Sagar Engineering, Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., and Sagar Tools misled the Adjudicating Authority regarding the use of the brand name since 1976.

Confusion in names:
The appellant's multiple name variations led to confusion and hindered the Adjudicating Authority's ability to determine the actual use of the brand name by the appellant from 1976 onwards. The judgment emphasizes the importance of clarity in identifying the correct entity associated with the trademark to avoid misleading authorities and stakeholders.

Pre-deposit order:
The judgment highlights a pre-deposit order of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed on the appellant in a related matter, indicating that any conclusion reached in the present appeal regarding ownership of the brand name would be premature due to the pending pre-deposit compliance. The tribunal stresses the need to maintain consistency and avoid issuing conflicting orders by refraining from granting a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement in the current case.

Registration dispute:
A dispute arises regarding the appellant's claim of being registered since 1978, which remains a point of contention in appeal No. 55793 of 2013. The tribunal expresses reluctance to accept this claim at the current stage, indicating that further examination and evidence may be necessary to substantiate the registration date asserted by the appellant.

Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of clear ownership documentation, the detrimental effects of confusion in entity names, the adherence to pre-deposit orders, and the need for resolving registration disputes through proper judicial procedures to safeguard the interests of all parties involved.