Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is to be noted here that, there is no clause or covenant in the said entire agreement permitting the Appellant to use the said three trade marks and copy rights of the said three labels which are admittedly owned by the Respondents. There is no clause of oral license or even oral assignment or verbal assignment in the said agreement. It is to be further noted here that, during the course of his arguments on 11 th August, 2021, Dr. Chandrachud, learned counsel for the Appellant, in response to the query by this Court, with his usual fairness at his command, conceded to the fact that, there is no clause in Share Purchase Agreement to use the trade marks of Respondent No.1 and it is only by way of License Agreement dated 6th December, 2014. It is thus an admitted fact on record that, the Share Purchase Agreement does not give any right to use trade marks owned and labels owned by Respondents, by the Appellant.

18 It is the case of the Appellant that, it has right to manufacture the said goods by using trade marks of Respondents and its vesting is for perpetuity. It is inter alia contended that, the Appellant has perpetual rights to use the said trade marks for the said goods by virtue of 'Oral assignment'. Section 2(b) of the Trade Marks Act defines "assignment" means an assignment in writing by act of the parties concerned. Section 25 of the said Act mentions that, the registration of a trade mark, after the commencement of the said Act, shall be for a period of ten years, but may be renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the said ssm 41 aost3938.20-Judgment.doc Section. The Trade Marks Act does not provide for any 'oral assignment' and therefore, there cannot be any perpetual license or assignment/vesting of the said trade marks with the Appellant. In the presence of written license agreement dated 6th December, 2014, there cannot be any oral license even as per the general law. The thing which Respondents and in particular, Respondent No.1 under the law cannot have, it cannot give to the Appellant.