BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court set aside the order passed by a single judge declaring Ideal Jawa Pvt Ltd as owner of the mark ‘Yezdi’ (word and device) and all trademark registration certificates issued by the Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, Delhi and Ahmedabad in favour of Boman R Irani are null and void.
A division bench of Justices DK Singh and Venkatesh Naik T passed the order while allowing the appeals filed by Classic Legends Pvt Ltd, Boman R Irani and others, challenging the single-judge order dated December 16, 2022.
It’s Official Liquidator’s duty to ascertain assets of firm, issue notice to Registrar: HC
The court noted that it was the duty of the Official Liquidator (OL) of the company (Ideal Jawa) to ascertain the assets of the company and issue the notice to the Registrar. The company court, in its winding up order dated August 17, 2001, had directed the OL to take stock of the assets of the company. The books of accounts and the records of the company were all in the custody of OL.
The OL would have come to know the name and address of the trademark agent of the company. If the OL had failed to protect the trademark for 15 years by not taking any steps for renewal/restoration of registration, the removal of the trademark from the Register of Trademarks cannot be faulted with, the court said.
It observed, “If the company had abandoned the trademark, it would not remain custodia legis since the date of presentation of the winding-up petition.”
The court pointed out that Boman Irani had been maintaining the website ‘www.yezdi.com’, which was in the public domain since 1998. It would not be proper to say that Irani self-inductively registered the website and was using the same. Section 47 of the Trademarks Act provides that when a trademark has been taken off the register, and it was not used for a continuous period of five years or more, it would be presumed that the mark was not used.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the trademark was not used for more than 15 years and not even renewed. “Considering the provisions of Section 47, we are of the view that the company would not be entitled to claim rights over the trademarks and therefore, no value can be said to be attached to the said trademark,” the court said.