Thus, the legislature, where it wanted to specifically provide for a particular situation, as in the case of shares, where the share derives, directly or indirectly, its value substantially from assets located in India, it did so. There is no such provision with regard to intangible assets, such as trademarks, brands, logos, i.e., intellectual property rights. Therefore, the well accepted principle of 'mobilia sequuntur personam' would have to be followed. The situs of the owner of an intangible asset would be the closest approximation of the situs of an intangible asset. This is an internationally accepted rule, unless it is altered by local legislation. Since there is no such alteration in the Indian context, we would agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the situs of the trademarks and intellectual property rights, which were assigned pursuant to the ISPA, would not be in India. This is so because the owner thereof was not located in India at the time of the transaction.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WP (C) 6902/2008
Decided On: 25.07.2016
Appellants: CUB PTY Limited
Vs.
Respondent: UOI and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.
