ADDIDAS AC Vs. ADDI WORSTED LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions, being C.M.(M) Nos. 413/92,398/ 92 nd 399/92 have been filed to impugn the order dated July 21, 1992, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi, by which he disposed of the interlocutory petitions filed on August 31, 1990 in the Opposition Nos.DEL 6249, DEL 6254 and DEL 6247. Tin- interlocutory petitions were filed by M/s Bata India Limited arid the grounds taken therein are that M/s Adidas Sportsshuhfabriken Adi Dassler & Co. KG, West Germany were the proprietor of a number of trade marks in India including Registration Nos. (1)271864-B, (2)352655 in class 25 and (3) 27163 in class IS. The consideration of these trade marks arises in the present Oppositions. The petitioner No. I assigned the trade marks by Deed of Assignment dated January 17, 1989, to M/s Bata India Lid. and it is contended on behalf of this Company that they are the assignees and necessary parties to the Opposition and they may be added as Opponents in the proceedings pending before the Deputy Registrar. The respondents in each case replied to the Interlocutory Petitions and took the plea that M/s Bata India Ltd. have no concern with the present Opposition proceedings; there is nothing on record to prove that the said Company are assignees of these trade marks. The present interlocutory petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended before the Deputy Registrar, as has been contended before me, that M/s. Bata India Ltd. may be made a party to the present Opposition Proceedings inaccordance with the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as being a necessary party. He has further argued that the trade marks have been assigned by Deed of Assignment dated January 17, 1989, by M/s. Adidas KG (assignors) to M/s Bata (assignees). The learned Deputy Registrar heard these interlocutory applications and disposed of the same by holding that petitioner No. I had assigned a mark in question vide Schedule I to the Deed of Assignment dated January 17, 1989, and they having 363 moved their Opposition in the Trade Marks Registry only on May 18, 1989, had no right to file the present Opposition Proceedings on the subsequent date since they were not the proprietors of the marks.

(3.) The interlocutory applications of M/s. Bata were rejected on the ground that the petitions were moved on August 31, 1990, to become a party to the Opposition Proceedings at a belated stage i.e. aftermore than 1 years,which was in violation of Rule 51 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 by which the party was entitled to become party to the Opposition Proceedings within a prescribed period, as definedin Rule'51 only by filing a notice of Opposition on the relevant form. The Deputy "Registrar further concluded that there is no provision in the Trade Marks Law that a party could be added as a party at a belated stage and the provisions of Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code . have no application in the Trade Marks Law. It has further been highlighted that at the time when the Opposition was moved the necessary registration was not in operation and the same was allowed in favour of M/s. Bata India Ltd. and necessary entries were made in the register as subsequent proprietor on October 14, 1992.'