9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authorization to file the suit. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. Validity of the assignment of the trademark 'CINNI'. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authorization to File the Suit: The defendants contended that the suit was not filed by a duly authorized person, asserting that Chandra Kumar Sah, the Managing Trustee who filed the suit, had been removed from his position by a resolution of the Board of Trustees. The plaintiff countered this by referencing the trust deed, which appointed Chandra Kumar Sah as the Managing Trustee for life, authorizing him to institute legal proceedings. The court noted that the trademark 'CINNI' had been assigned to the plaintiff under a Deed of Assignment, and the Managing Trustee was authorized to file the suit. The court emphasized that for the purposes of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments made in the plaint must be taken as correct. The court found that the issue of the Managing Trustee's removal and authorization to file the suit were matters to be decided after evidence was presented. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court: The defendants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. They asserted that both parties were located in Varanasi, and all relevant activities occurred there. The plaintiff argued that the court had jurisdiction as the plaintiff conducted business in Delhi through its distributor, M/s. Sah Agencies Pvt. Ltd., which received a cease and desist notice from the defendants in Delhi. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of conducting business within its jurisdiction. The court also noted that the defendants' actions, such as issuing caution notices in a widely circulated newspaper, supported the plaintiff's claim of jurisdiction. The court concluded that jurisdictional issues could only be definitively resolved post-trial. 3. Validity of the Assignment of the Trademark 'CINNI': The defendants contended that the assignment of the trademark 'CINNI' was invalid due to non-registration with the Registrar, as required under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff argued that the assignment deed executed on 05.11.2000 vested the trademark rights in the plaintiff, and the registration of the assignment was a procedural formality. The court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that the title to the trademark is created by the assignment deed and not by its registration. The court cited various precedents to support this view, emphasizing that registration serves as evidence of title but does not confer title itself. The court noted that the plaintiff had applied for registration, and the matter was pending before the Registrar. The court found that the assignment deed was valid and that the plaintiff had acquired rights in the trademark 'CINNI' from the date of its execution. Conclusion: The court dismissed the defendants' applications for rejection of the plaint and for vacation of the interim injunction. It found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable injury favoring the plaintiff. The interim orders restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's business and from transferring the trademark 'CINNI' were made absolute.
|
