Showing posts with label proprietary rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label proprietary rights. Show all posts

Thursday, 18 October 2018

Whether Arbitration Clause can be assigned?

As per Section 7 of the Act, every arbitration agreement has to be in writing between the parties. It also has to be signed by the parties. In the present case, there is no arbitration agreement signed between the Petitioner and M/s Yasikan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The company was not awarded the contract. The offer was submitted by M/s Yasikan Enterprises as a sole proprietary firm. It was signed by Mr. Jagdish Kumar as the sole proprietor.

The company being a distinct legal entity from the sole proprietorship, the arbitration clause, does not apply devolve upon the company. Moreover, the arbitration clause is an independent clause which is not assignable. This is clear from a reading of Delhi Iron and Steel Company Limited (Supra).
“17. So far as the arbitration clause is concerned it was held that this contract is personal in its character and incapable of assignment on that ground. However it is a settled law that an arbitration clause does not take away the right of a party of a contract to assign it if it is otherwise assignable.
18. While distinguishing between two clauses of assignment the Supreme Court observed that a right of obligations under a contract cannot be assigned except with the consent of the promisee, and when such consent is given, it is really a novation resulting in substitution of liabilities. In other words, rights under a contract are assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature or the rights are incapable of assignment either under the law or under an agreement between the parties.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision:16th October, 2018
 O.M.P. 639/2008, I.As. 8293/2018 & 8294/2018

GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI Vs M/S YASIKAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD 
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Print Page

Thursday, 17 July 2014

Judgment relating to IPR dispute regarding film" Lai bhaari"

Justice Patel succinctly rules that Techlegal has “absolutely no proprietary or statutory rights in the phrase “lai bhaari”, no matter how spelled.”
He notes that awarding proprietary rights for common expressions to any individual or company has dangerous consequences and such disputes cannot be the mandate of intellectual property protection laws. He notes that this would amount to “a form of censorship and the gagging of speech and expression.”
The judgment also notes that the trademark registration produced by the Plaintiff is of the domain name laibhaari.com, and not of the colloquial Marathi expression ‘Lai Bhaari’, and that both are completely different things. Plus, the registration is applicable only to the narrow range of services under Class 38of the Trade Marks Act. In fact, when Techlegal Solutions tried to trademark the expression ‘Lai Bhaari’ the Registry apparently opposed it and the application is still pending.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 1503 OF 2014
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 629 OF 2014
Techlegal Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
V
Mrs. Genelia Ritiesh Deshmukh 

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 3rd July 2014

Print Page