Trade mark assignment registration requires a real pending dispute; unilateral revocation cannot bar entry of the assignment.

Registration of an assignment of a trade mark under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 may be refused only if the validity of the assignment is genuinely in dispute between assignor and assignee. A unilateral revocation letter or collateral grievance does not undo an executed assignment, and the Registrar need only satisfy himself on the face of the deed and title. The writ court's supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to grave injustice, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error. On the facts, no pending civil dispute or legal infirmity in the deed was shown, so the proviso to Section 45(1) did not apply and the registration was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Registrar and the Appellate Board were justified in recording the assignment of the trade mark under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 despite the petitioner's revocation letter and alleged disputes; and whether the proviso to Section 45(1) barred registration in the absence of a pending bona fide dispute between assignor and assignee.

Analysis: The writ court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate, so interference is warranted only where there is grave miscarriage of justice, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error. Under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Registrar is required to satisfy himself of the title and the validity of the assignment on its face, and may refuse registration only where the validity of the assignment is genuinely in dispute between the parties. A mere unilateral revocation letter does not undo an executed assignment, and the assignor cannot treat itself as the judge of its own alleged grievance. The material placed did not show any pending civil proceeding between assignor and assignee challenging the assignment, nor any legal infirmity in the deed itself. The Registrar was therefore not bound to withhold registration, and the Appellate Board committed no error in affirming that view.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 45(1) was not attracted, and the registration of the assignment was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned orders failed, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of an assignment under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can be refused only when there is a real and pending dispute between assignor and assignee as to its validity; a unilateral revocation or collateral grievance does not bar registration, and writ interference will not lie absent jurisdictional error or grave injustice.

---