2009 (7) TMI 1361 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Assignment Deed dated 1.4.1999.
2. Jurisdiction and role of the Registrar under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Applicability of the principles of natural justice in the Registrar's decision.
4. The impact of the Memorandum of Partition on the Assignment Deed.
5. The High Court's power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Assignment Deed dated 1.4.1999:
The Petitioner argued that the Assignment Deed dated 1.4.1999 was void ab initio due to legal infirmities, non-payment of consideration, and breach of the Memorandum of Partition (MoP). The Petitioner claimed that the assignment was invalid as it exceeded the scope of goods envisaged in the MoP. The Respondent countered that the assignment was valid, and any dispute regarding its validity should be resolved by a competent court. The court concluded that no legal infirmity was apparent on the face of the Assignment Deed and that the Petitioner had not taken steps to seek its cancellation through a civil court.

2. Jurisdiction and role of the Registrar under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The Registrar's role under Section 45 is quasi-judicial, requiring satisfaction that the assignment is valid and does not violate the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The Registrar is not to adjudicate disputes between the assignor and assignee but must ensure the assignment deed is free from legal infirmities. The court held that the Registrar correctly registered the assignment as there was no dispute pending in a competent court regarding the validity of the assignment.

3. Applicability of the principles of natural justice in the Registrar's decision:
The Petitioner contended that the Registrar's decision violated the principles of natural justice as the assignment was recorded despite its revocation. The court found that the Registrar's actions were within the scope of his quasi-judicial functions and that the Petitioner had not demonstrated any pending dispute or legal action challenging the assignment's validity at the time of registration.

4. The impact of the Memorandum of Partition on the Assignment Deed:
The Petitioner argued that the Assignment Deed was a corollary to the MoP and that the Registrar should have considered the MoP's terms. The court noted that the MoP and the Assignment Deed were executed separately, and any breach of the MoP should be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The court found that the Registrar was not required to go beyond the terms of the assignment deed.

5. The High Court's power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated that its powers under Articles 226 and 227 are supervisory and not appellate. The High Court should not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. The court held that there was no such miscarriage of justice or violation in the Registrar's decision to register the assignment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the Petitioner's arguments. The Registrar's decision to register the assignment was upheld as it was within his quasi-judicial functions, and no valid dispute regarding the assignment's validity was pending in any competent court. The court emphasized the need for the Petitioner to seek relief through appropriate legal channels if it believed the assignment was invalid.