TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery fact was correctly appreciated by the Commissioner who decided the appeal in favour of the appellant. - appellant has been using its own brand name 'Kalimark' and it belongs to the appellant. In view thereof, the case of the appellant is squarely covered in its favour by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.9157 of 2003 titled CCE, Hyderabad IV vs. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics [2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 3594 of 2005, Civil Appeal No. 361 and 4387-4392 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - A K Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. R.Venkataramani,Sr. Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. K.Radhakrishnan,Sr. Adv. Dated : May 13, 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Mutual Agreement signed between the parties the ownership of the aforesaid trademark/brand name 'Kalimark' no longer remained with the appellant assessee and it belongs to the other party. On this basis it arrived at the finding that the appellant has been using the trade mark/brand name of the third party. 3. We find that the aforesaid observation is against the record and contrary to the Deed of Mutual Agreement which has been entered into between the earstwhile partners. Para 9 of the recital to this family arrangement is as under: Since all the parties herein have mutually intend to carry forward the reputation and well established Trade Mark `KALI MARK' in future also thus carrying out to the future generations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated Water Works and Trade Marks mentioned above are solely vested with the parties 2 to 10 herein who are the direct male lineal descendents and subject to clause 'G' herein the parties herein cannot and shall not permit or give their existing rights to any female descendents or any third person, nor the parties 2 to 10 herein have right to transfer/sell for consideration or without consideration to third parties. If any party herein or their respective male descendents wants to close down the business they shall have to either sell their rights of Trade name and Trade Marks to other remaining parties or to their male lineal descendents only. Such parties shall acquire the rights subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.1993 which has been duly presented on 12.3.1993 itself for registration whereas the impugned Notification No.59/94 came into effect only from 1.4.1994 and hence no motive can be attributed against the appellant in respect of the Mutual Agreement. I have read the entie contents of Mutual Agreement. I find that Mr. K.P.R. Sakthivel is also a party to the said Mutual Agreement and no royalty is also payable to the said K.P.R. Sakthivel. Even Mr. K.P.R.Sakthivel has specifically agreed that he cannot use the brand name in the marketing area of the appellant. Thus there seems to be recognition of individual proprietary rights over the brand names within the respective specified marketing area. The nature of succession of the proprietary rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
