Trademark assignment rights, territorial jurisdiction and pleadings: non-recordal and disputed facts did not defeat the plaintiff's interim protection.

Order VII Rule 11 objections based on alleged lack of authority were said to fail where the pleadings raised disputed facts that could not be resolved at the threshold. Territorial jurisdiction was also treated as a matter requiring evidence, given the pleaded Delhi-based distribution, notices, invoices and circulation. On trademark assignment, the note states that title passes on execution of the assignment deed and that non-recordal with the Registrar is evidentiary only, so pending registration does not defeat an assignee's right to sue for infringement and passing off. Interim injunction was supported on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorised person; (ii) whether this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction; (iii) whether non-recordal of the assignment with the Registrar deprived the plaintiff of title to sue for infringement and passing off; (iv) whether the interim injunction deserved to be vacated.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorised person.

Analysis: For an application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint are to be taken as true. The challenge to the Managing Trustee's authority depended on disputed facts, including the alleged removal of the trustee and the reasons for such removal. Those questions could not be decided at the threshold without evidence.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on this ground and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The plaint disclosed business activity in Delhi through a distributor, notices issued to that distributor at Delhi, invoices relating to supplies in Delhi, and publication of caution notices having circulation in Delhi. Whether the plaintiff was carrying on business in Delhi and whether part of the cause of action arose there were matters that could not be finally decided pre-trial.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether non-recordal of the assignment with the Registrar deprived the plaintiff of title to sue for infringement and passing off.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shows that title to a trademark passes on assignment by act of parties and that registration is only evidentiary and for record purposes. The Court relied on the definitions of assignment, registered proprietor and transmission, and held that non-registration does not negate rights created by the assignment deed. The plaintiff, therefore, could maintain the action notwithstanding pending recordal.

Conclusion: The plaintiff's title and right to sue were not defeated by non-recordal of the assignment.

Issue (iv): Whether the interim injunction deserved to be vacated.

Analysis: The plaintiff showed a prima facie case based on the assignment deed and prior use under the transferred mark. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and continuation of the defendants' impugned use would cause irreparable injury. The injunction already restrained interference with the plaintiff's business and transfer of the assigned mark, and those restraints were found justified.

Conclusion: The request to vacate the injunction failed and the interim order was made absolute.

Final Conclusion: The defendants' applications to reject the plaint and to vacate the injunction were dismissed, while the plaintiff's injunction application was substantially allowed and the protective restraints in aid of the assigned trademark rights were continued.

Ratio Decidendi: Rights in a registered trademark acquired by assignment vest on execution of the assignment deed, and non-recordal with the Registrar does not by itself destroy title or the assignee's right to maintain an infringement action; threshold objections based on disputed facts cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and interim relief is justified where prima facie rights, balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour the plaintiff.

---