https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291462 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. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:13:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291462 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291462