Vali Pattabhirama Rao And Anr. vs Sri Ramanuja Ginning And Rice Factory P. ... on 26 December, 1983
9. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1
has on the other hand, submitted that the Respondent No. 1 cannot
be made to suffer due to any acts done/not done by the
Registrar/Trademark Registry with respect to the order dated 25th
January 2018. Grave prejudice and irreparable loss will be caused to
Respondent No. 1 in the event the matter is sent back to the Registrar
for fresh consideration under Section 45, as the registration of
trademark would exist in vacuum. He has addressed this Court on
the merits of TM-24 Application made by the Respondent No. 1 and
has referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vali
Pattabhirama Rao Vs. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory 1 at
paragraphs 19 and 28, in support of his submission that no document
is required for conversion of a partnership to a company. In the
present case, the subject trademark "Electronica" was registered in
the name of the partnership firm M/s. Electronica from 2004 both
under Class 7 and Class 9 of the Trade Marks Act and the subject
1 AIR 1984 ANDHRA PRADESH 176
6/23
::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2024 13:25:26 :::
8-COMMP-47-&-51-22.doc
mark had thereafter automatically vested in Respondent No. 1
Company upon the firm's conversion to part IX Company under the
Companies Act which would amount to transmission. This conversion
was on 30th March 2011 where all three partners of the erstwhile
Firm agreed to and were promoters and directors of Respondent
No.1.