Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The Authority additionally held that a case of oral assignment was one which was set up for the first time in the course of opposition to the revocation application. An additional issue which appears to have arisen in the revocation proceedings was with respect to the change of the corporate name of Recot Inc. to FLNA. The Authority noted that evidence in support of change of name was also produced for the first time only in the course of revocation proceedings. On an overall consideration of all of the above, the Authority came to conclude that the registration was liable to be revoked based on the provisions comprised in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (h) of Section 34 of the Act. It is Rules this order of the Authority which was assailed by PepsiCo before the learned Single Judge.

34. Turning then to the letter of FLNA dated 12 September 2019, it was contended that the aforesaid letter is essentially a recordal of an oral assignment from FLNA to PepsiCo, both of which are undisputedly affiliate companies of PepsiCo, Inc. It was submitted that PepsiCo was constrained to place that document on record since the respondent-appellant had raised questions regarding the oral assignment. Mr. Krishnan submitted that the transfer of rights in any case occurred between two group companies and was a matter, if at all, pertaining to their indoor management and which the respondent- appellant would have no locus to contest or challenge.

44. Proceeding then to Form PV- 2 which was submitted, Mr. Gonsalves highlighted the fact that the same was neither signed by the breeder nor did it bear the signatures of witnesses. Far from the witnesses having not signed that form, it was pointed out by Mr. Gonsalves that PepsiCo had also failed to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses. It was further contended that PepsiCo chose not to place any evidence in support of a purported name change of the corporate entity concerned from Recot Inc. to FLNA, even though the same reportedly occurred as far back as in 2004. In any case, and according to Mr. Gonsalves, in the absence of a formal assignment by FLNA in favor of PepsiCo, the application was liable to be outrightly rejected. Mr. Gonsalves also questioned the contention of an oral assignment between FLNA and PepsiCo asserting that the Act mandates documentary proof of assignment being tendered along with Form PV-2 format and the statute therefore not contemplating oral assignments at all. The order of revocation, according to learned senior counsel, thus remedies the lapses committed by the Registrar.