TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a Court Receiver appointed over the assets of a dissolved partnership can maintain an action for infringement of the firm's registered trade marks; (ii) whether a passing-off claim can be maintained despite cessation of trading where the firm's goodwill survives dissolution; (iii) whether the marks adopted by the defendants were deceptively similar and justified interlocutory injunctions.
Issue (i): Whether a Court Receiver appointed over the assets of a dissolved partnership can maintain an action for infringement of the firm's registered trade marks.
Analysis: The trade marks remained registered and subsisting assets of the firm. A receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure is empowered to protect, preserve, manage and, where necessary, sue in respect of the property committed to his charge with the powers of the owner. The receiver therefore stood in the shoes of the proprietor for the purpose of safeguarding the marks and enforcing the statutory right of relief against infringement.
Conclusion: The receiver was held competent to maintain the infringement action.
Issue (ii): Whether a passing-off claim can be maintained despite cessation of trading where the firm's goodwill survives dissolution.
Analysis: Passing off protects the goodwill of a business, not merely the physical sale of current goods. Under the partnership law, the goodwill of a dissolved firm remains an asset until the affairs are completely wound up and may be sold for the benefit of the partners. The absence of current sales did not extinguish that goodwill, and there was no requirement that the plaintiff must be actively trading at the moment relief is sought if the subsisting goodwill is likely to be injured by misrepresentation.
Conclusion: The passing-off claim was held maintainable notwithstanding cessation of business.
Issue (iii): Whether the marks adopted by the defendants were deceptively similar and justified interlocutory injunctions.
Analysis: The Court found substantial similarity in the competing word marks, their pronunciation, the accompanying devices, and the overall get-up, colour scheme, shape and visual appearance of the containers. The adoption of the impugned marks after earlier protective orders and by a company controlled by an erstwhile partner strengthened the inference of dishonest adoption and likely confusion. The statutory registration of the plaintiff's marks also supported prima facie protection pending winding up and sale.
Conclusion: The marks were held deceptively similar and interlocutory injunctions were warranted.
Final Conclusion: The motion succeeded because the receiver had standing, the goodwill and statutory trade-mark rights remained protectable after dissolution, and the defendants' adoption of similar marks amounted to actionable infringement and passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: A receiver in possession of a dissolved firm's assets may enforce and protect subsisting trade-mark rights, and a dissolved firm's goodwill remains actionable for passing off until winding up is complete; deceptive similarity is assessed on the overall impression of the marks, their devices and get-up.
TaxTMI 
