9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication 8/99. The same was denied by the authorities below. The contentions raised by the appellant before the authorities were that the said brand name was previously owned by Bullworker Pvt. Ltd. and by deed of assignment dated 24-6-99 said brand name was assigned and transferred to the appellants. The department contended that the appellants had manufactured the goods in the brand name of another, and that appellants being a partnership concern, they were not entitled to claim the benefit of the said notification, as the usage of the brand name "Bullworker" the trade mark of which is owned by another person infringed the Paragraph No. 4 of the said notification. The departmental authorities claimed a differential duty of Rs. 3,11,021/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ark Bullworker in favour of the assignee appellant. It is an admitted fact that the trade mark Bullworker was registered in the name of erstwhile owner. While the assignment deed dated 24-6-99, the erstwhile owner who happens to be the assignor have agreed to assign and transfer to the assesses before us, the trade mark "Bullworker" and have also agreed to do all acts necessary to register the same in favour of and in the name of the assignees the appellant before us with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. By the said assignment, it was also agreed to by the assignor to hand over to the assignee the formula for manufacturing the said product known as Bullworker and have agreed not to directly or indirectly manufacture sale or distribute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been rightly denied to them in the Order-in-Original." In view of the above, it does not bear legal scrutiny. When we look into the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Section 37 clearly enables the owner of a registered trade mark can assign and transmit whether with or without the goodwill concerned in respect of either of all the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered or of some only of those goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of this provision of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In our view therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly wrong in law and facts of the cases before us. 6. The orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
