Original trade mark holder died intestate - Sons of Class-I heirs would not have any right by birth in such properties -

Citation 

AIROnline 2022 Del 528

Delhi High Court

AMIT BANSAL , J.

CS(COMM) - 659 of 2021 D/- 28 - 2 - 2022

ASHIM GUJRAL AND ORS. v. KUVAM GUJRAL AND ORS.

(A)Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999), S.28 - Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), S.8, S.6, S.19 - Rights

conferred by registration - Entitlement - Plea of defendant that properties of original trade

mark holder including trademark would devolve upon all legal heirs in branch of predeceased

son in terms of S. 19 read with S. 6 of Act of 1956 - Original trade mark holder died intestate

- Not a case of defendant that trademark was a co-parcenary property of original trade mark

holder or that he had constituted a Hindu Undivided Family which existed at time of his death

- Reliance placed on S. 6 of Act of 1956 is misplaced - Term 'two or more heirs' used in S.19

of Act of 1956 would be plaintiffs as they are ones who were Class-I heirs who succeeded to

property of original trade mark holder in terms of S. 8 of Act of 1956 - Sons of Class-I heirs

would not have any right by birth in such properties - S. 19 does not create any right in favour

of defendant - Defendant not being a Class-I heir would not get any interest by birth in property

of original trade mark holder.

 (Paras 10 , 13) 

(B)Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999), S.24 - Jointly owned trade marks - Principle - Applicability -

Plea of defendant that S. 24 recognizes same principle of joint ownership as envisaged in Hindu

Succession Act - Defendant since had no right in trade mark under succession laws, S. 24 cannot

come to aid of defendant. Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), S.6 -

 (Para 15) 

(C)Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999), S.28, S.24 - Rights conferred by registration - Claim by

defendant - Jointly owned trade marks - Plea of defendant that in registration granted in respect

of application filed by plaintiffs, Trademark Registry imposed a condition that mark shall be

used by joint proprietors and that would include defendant as well - Condition imposed by

Trademark Registry is in respect of joint usage by plaintiffs as it is said plaintiffs who applied

to be substituted in place of original trade mark holder upon his death - Said condition imposed

by Trademark Registry cannot inure to benefit of defendant.

 (Para 16) 

(D)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2 - Trade Marks Act (47 of 1999), S.29, S.134 -

Interim injunction - Restraining defendants from using plaintiff's registered trademark 'MOTI

MAHAL' - Plaintiffs, sole registered owners of word mark 'MOTI MAHAL' - Since they

continued business of original trade mark holder after his demise in 1997, they made several

other applications for registration of trademarks in respect of 'MOTI MAHAL' and other

formative marks and obtained various registrations in their name - They acquired tremendous

goodwill and reputation in respect of mark 'MOTI MAHAL' - Any unauthorised user of mark

'MOTI MAHAL' by defendants in respect of similar services of running restaurants/cafes and

1

© Copyright with AIR Infotech & All India Reporter. All rights reserved