Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60. The Assignee undertook that the words BRIHANS and BRIHANS logo will be used exclusively by Assignee strictly for the assigned trademarks only which were covered under this deed. It was agreed by the Assignee that the Assignor had full right to assign any o ther word and label of the Assignor other than those covered under the said deed. The Assignee agreed that the ownership of the word BRIHANS and the BRIHANS logo shall remain with the Assignor exclusively forever as before and the Assignee shall not use the word BRIHANS or BRIHANS logo for any other products manufactured or marketed by Assignee, without the prior written consent of the Assignor.

2010 ASSIGNMENT DEED

63. The sale consideration of the 2010 Assignment Deed is Rs. 1,000/- only.

64. By the 2010 Assignment Deed, the Assignor BMSS has assigned to the Defendant 74 Trademarks.

65. Annexure A lists out 74 brands/trademarks assigned by the said deed of 2010. The brands assigned and contained in Annexure A relevant for the present controversy are as under:

Applicatio n Tra de Ma rk Na m e Status/RenewedUpto Date Jr. No. 24/05/1994 BRI HAN‟S 24/05/2014-1349 04/12/2008 BRI HMA‟S Registered-4/12/2008 BRI HAN‟S PREMIUM BLUE to be applied BRI HAN‟S DANZ NO. 1 to be applied NOVA GOA PREMI XED to be applied DRY GI N 04/12/2008 BRI HMA‟S GOA examination report replied 04/12/2008 BRI HMA‟S ORI GI NAL Advertised DOCTOR BRANDY

68. In view of the law as laid down by the CLASSIC E QUIPMENTS CASE (SUPRA ) once the 2005 Assignment Deed was executed, BMSS ceased to have any right, title or interest in the trademarks assigned and as such could not re-assign them by the 2010 Assignment Deed. The 2010 Assignment Deed to the extent it seeks to assign the trademarks already assigned would be invalid and inoperative.

69. The Defendant has not denied the execution and validity of the 2005 Assignment Deed on the contrary there is an admission that the same has been duly execute and it conveys the title in favour of the Plaintiff.

70. The trademarks assigned by the 2005 Assignment Deed to the Plaintiff and relevant for the present controversy are BRIHANS PREMIUM WHISKY, BRIHANS NO. 1 WHISKY, BRIHAN‟S NO. 1, BRIHAN‟S WHISKY, BRIHAN‟S PREMIUM BLUE WHISKY, BRIHANS DOCTOR BRANDY, BRIHAN‟S DOCTOR , GOA DRY GIN & LIM E 35 UP, BRIHAN‟S GOA, BRIHAN‟S GOA SPECIAL DRY GIN.

71. Once the abovementioned trademarks were assigned to the Plaintiff, BMSS could not have adopted, used or assigned, identical or deceptively similar trademarks. The 2010 Assignment Deed seeks to assign the following trademarks to the Defendant that are claimed to be identical or deceptively similar: BRIHAN‟S PREMIU M BLUE, BRIHAN‟S DANZ NO. 1, NOVA GOA PREMIXED DRY GIN, BRIHMA‟S GOA, and BRIHMA‟S ORIGINAL DOCTOR BRANDY .