Assignment of Trademark


It is the assignment of trade mark that creates rights in favour of the assignee and not the registration of assignment as contemplated in Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. If the application for getting transferred the registered trademark in the office of the Registrar is pending, that does not debar the party from protecting the violation of the trademark. Registration of assignment is not a condition precedent to an action for infringement by the assignee and an assignee of registered trademark will not be disentitled to an action for infringement on the ground that the assignment was not registered.
  • T.I. Muhammad Zumoon Sahib vs. Fathimunnissa; AIR 1960 Mad 80
  • Modi Threads Limited vs. Som Soot Gola Factory; AIR 1992 Delhi 4
  • Grandlay Electricals (India) Ltd. vs. Vidya Batra; 1998 PTC 18
  • Astrazeneca U.K. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; 2006 PTC 733 (Delhi)
  • Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited vs. Cipla Limited; 2009 (39) PTC 347 (Del)
  • Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad; MANU/MH/0485/2012

Foreign Cases

  • Thorn Ld. vs. East Anglia Portable Builings Ld.; 1960 R.P.C. 260
  • Ihlee vs. Henshaw; (1886) 3 R.P.C. 15
  • Blighty Industries Association Ld. vs. Scottish Home Industries Association Ltd.; (1927) 44 R.P.C. 269
Recordal of Deed of Assignment is mandatory. Non-compliance of mandatory requirement to record assignments would amount to flouting the law. Any person not complying with the mandatory provision cannot take benefit despite such non-compliance.
  • Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs. Kunwer Sachdev & Ors.;  2019 (80) PTC 225 (Del)
  • Ramaiah Life Style Cafe vs. Eminent Entertainment & Ors.; CS(COMM.) 1433/2016
Factors that determine whether an arrangement is a license or an assignment.
  • Hilton Roulunds v. Commissioner of Income Tax; ITA 325/2005, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi;  (2018) 304 CTR (Del); 721 [2019] 412 ITR 436(Delhi); MANU/DE/1541/2018
Any delay on the part of the Trade Marks Registry cannot be to the prejudice of the plaintiff firm, who has every right to protect its right in the trade marks.
  • M/s. Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty Innovative Outfits Limited; CS(COMM) 637/2019; Date of Decision: 26th May, 2020; Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Para 56)

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *