Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)Section 91 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 18 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
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.
Union Of India And Others vs I.T.C. Limited on 16 July, 1993
10. Mr. Kamat has submitted that upon conversion of a
partnership Firm into a limited company under part IX of the
Companies Act, all assets of firm stand automatically transferred to
and vest in the company without a necessary instrument or
document. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in HEM
Corporation Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs. ITC Limited2 at paragraphs 5, 19 and
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008
32. Accordingly, I do not consider the remand back to
the Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration of the TM-24
applications to be a futile exercise and in fact, the same is much
warranted, in the present case. The submissions with regard to the
principle of natural justice having considerably changed as contended
by Mr. Kamat and reliance placed by him upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of U.P. (supra) and Haryana Financial
Corporation (supra) are inapplicable in the present case, particularly,
considering that there has been no order which has been passed by
the Respondent No. 2 as admitted by Respondent No. 2 and hence,
the issuance of an order would be a pre-requisite for the decisions to
apply.