Texmo water pump 1hp

Rest of the features comprises of carbon vs ceramic mechanical seal and highly wear resistant bronze impeller. Cover dome, Stator frame and Casing are made of cast iron. Wear resistant bronze impeller. Strong and accurate cast iron casings. Suitable for V, 50 Hz power supply. Rugged single phase TEFC motor with dynamically balanced rotor. All applications which require self priming action up to 8 metres. Gardening and small farm irrigation.

If at all any license comes to play, it can be only by the registered proprietors of the trade mark in favour of a third party for the use of the said registered trade mark. In this case, as already stated, the brothers being the partners of the registered firm, they are entitled to use their registered trade mark in respect of all their goods provided the goods fall within the classified group for the use of the trade mark.

On the death of one of the brothers, the second applicant had been inducted as the partner in all the three firms and thereby the second applicant and the third respondent became the registered proprietors of the trade mark. When the division came in , both the partners of the firm being the registered proprietors of the trade mark, thought fit to arrive at a family arrangement by the division of the business, i. Texmo Industries started the Aqua Pump Industries in and the Aqua Sub Engineering in and made a division of the manufacturing of the goods by the respective three firms.

Hence, the second applicant and the third respondent might have thought prudent to divide the business as such for each branch and executed the three deeds of partnership and dissolution dated In terms of those deeds, the second applicant to take the Texmo Industries and the third respondent to take the other two, the Aqua Pump Industries and the Aqua Sub Engineering.

A separate deed of agreement was entered into about which there is no dispute. This deed of agreement seems to have come into existence only to reinforce the manner in which the business of the three firms were carried on and to continue the same in the same manner as all along it has been carried on.

After the execution of the deed in May, , the parties carried on their business as before and continue the same whereby the two firms, Aqua Pump Industries and Aqua Sub Engineering had been manufacturing the goods which are specified in Schedules I and II to the deed of agreement which they were manufacturing from their formation.

Hence, the intention of the parties as derived from their conduct as well as their entering into the deed of agreement, dissolution of partnership is clear that the three firms, the first applicant and respondents No. When the deed of agreement came into existence alongwith the deeds of dissolution and partnership on the same day, it has to be taken as part of the same transaction, especially, when it deals with the ownership and use of the trade mark.

As already stated, when the second applicant and the third respondent are the proprietors of the trade mark 'TEXMO' and when the deeds of dissolution did not specify any clause regarding the proprietorship, none of the partners can claim exclusive ownership over the said trade mark. Hence, no question of license, assignment, permission or consent by one to the other would arise. The deed of agreement between the parties confirms the joint proprietorship and specifies that after dissolution, all the three firms can use the same in respect of their goods.

As the goods were bifurcated, there is no confusion between each item of product specified in the Schedule in respect of each firm is to come out from the respective unit. Hence, what is arrived at under the deed of agreement is only an agreement accepting the joint proprietorship and to use the trade mark in future as they were all using before.

Even though respondents No. Hence, the right of assignment claimed by respondents No. When the third respondent agreed to retire from the partnership of the first applicant firm by paying a sum of Rs. If all these factors are taken into consideration, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the deed of agreement did not confer any proprietorship and it gave only a license in favour of respondents No.

The learned senior counsel for the applicant has raised only the technical pleas that the Registrar had passed the order of assignment without any notice to the applicants and TM 17 was filed by a person who has no authority and further TM 17 has to be filed by the registered proprietor and in the absence of the application from the second applicant, TM 17 ought not to have been ordered.

Similarly, TM 36 is to be filed only by the registered proprietor. The second applicant being the registered proprietor, without, her signature, TM 36 ought not to have been ordered. Before we take the above contentions for discussion, we would refer to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajni Dua v. Bhushan Kumar , PTC 18 Perpetually, according to the understanding that the products which were being manufactured, sold or marketed by the plaintiffs shall not be manufactured, sold or marketed by the defendants and similarly, the plaintiffs shall not manufacture, market or sell the products of the defendants in any manner.

This has been the understanding among the family members from the very beginning. The learned Judge held that the peace, amity and family harmony can be restored if the family arrangement is adhered to and respected and the family arrangement should not be disturbed as far a possible.

Girja Nandini Devi - , Kale and Ors. Deputy Director of Consolidation , , and Madho Das v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors. Paramveer Singh and Anr. Paras Special Machine Co. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors. Motia Rani and Ors. As the matter has been elaborately argued before us on merits and we discussed the merits of the case in detail, we do not think that the order of the Registrar can be set aside on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice.

In the absence of supporting document, the Court held the notice ought to have been served on the other side. Similarly, in the case reported in 16 PTC 69, a suit was pending between the registered proprietors and as such, the order of assignment passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in favour of one of the parties cannot be sustained as there was already existing dispute between the parties. The Registrar ought to have issued notice to the other side.

In the case reported in PTC SUPPL 1 , the plea was that the order was obtained on the basis of forged document with the object of depriving the appellant. In the case reported in 25 PTC , the Registration was obtained in favour of one group of partners after the dissolution of partnership by concealing of material facts and without placing the deed of dissolution. If the facts of the particular cases are taken into consideration, the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel are of no help.

As already stated by us, the use of the trade mark by all the three firms having the same partners was admitted. Even after the death of one of the partners, his wife, the second applicant was taken in as a partner and the same arrangement continued. In , when the dissolution and reconstitution took place, the deed of agreement was entered into between the second applicant and the third respondent expressing their intention to continue the same arrangement.

When all these materials were placed before the Registrar, the Registrar, having considered these matters has passed the order of recordal of proprietorship of the partners of the respondent No.

Having raised all these issues before us for consideration and we having considered each and every issue elaborately, we do not think it necessary to rectify the register just on the technical plea, especially when the transactions were not denied by the applicants. Ravi Kumar as proprietors of the above mark. When the deeds of dissolution and reconstitution of partnership were silent regarding the proprietorship of the trade mark, it is not clear as to how the applicants made a request to register them as proprietors.

Admittedly, such a request was made by the applicants without any consent from the respondents or by way of any joint application. When the applicants themselves at the first instance, initiated action to get the transfer of proprietorship in their favour without any consent from the respondents or at least from third respondent, it is not open to them to complain about the conduct of the respondents, who initiated action to thwart the attempt of the applicants to get the exclusive right over the trade mark contrary to the terms of the deed of agreement entered into between the second applicant and the third respondent.

Hence, the technical plea raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants is without any merit. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the respondents were not given any goodwill in the business, we are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. In fact, the learned Counsel wanted support his argument on the basis of Clause 16 of the three deeds of agreement and retirement which is as follows:.

As per the above term, it is clear that the second applicant takes over the first applicant firm with a goodwill and either the third respondent or the partners of respondent Nos. Likewise, the second applicant cannot claim any goodwill in the business of the respondent Nos. When the partners divide the partnership business, they decided to take the three firms independently with the goodwill of the business. It is an admitted fact that right from the inception of the respondent Nos.

Hence, the respondent Nos. Hence, it cannot be said that the third respondent did not get any goodwill under the deed of agreement. While deciding the case, we are very much aware about the provisions under Section 24 of the said Act, which is extracted below:. Sub-section 1 generally prohibits registration of two or more persons who use or propose to use the trade mark independently as proprietor thereof. The Sub-section 2 provides exception, which is clear as the opening words of the provision indicate.

Sub-section 2 provides that the relations of two or more persons interested in a trade mark or such that no one of them is entitled as between himself and the other or others to use it except a on behalf of both or all of them, or b in relation to an article with which both or all of them are connected in the course of the trade. Those persons may be registered as joint proprietors of the trade mark. Sub-clause a covers the cases of co-partnership.

Sub-clause b covers article with which partnership is connected. As per the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act , , partners use the mark on behalf of one another and all of them. It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Power Control Appliances v.

Sumeet Machines P Limited ,. The trade mark cannot have two origins. Therefore, when one of the partners had proclaimed himself as a rival to the other and as joint owner, it is not permissible in law.

The trade mark cannot be used in rivalry and in competition with each other. If the respondents, i. Here, we should remember as to how all along the Aqua firms did their trade. The deed of agreement only confirms the right of the Aqua firms in using the 'TEXMO' mark as well as for continuation of the use of the same. It is an admitted fact that the parties have obtained the advice of the trade mark agencies before the said agreement was executed.

When the Deed of Agreement confers proprietorship of the trade marks on all the three firms, it would clearly indicate that all the parties want to continue the use of the said trade mark by dividing the business and bifurcating the goods for each of the firm.

This may be only to avoid confusion in the course of the trade of each firm. If the dissolution of partnership takes effect, then neither the respondents not the applicants can use the trade mark 'TEXMO'.

The net result is that the trade mark with which the business of the three firms had been built up, cannot be used by any of the firms. Perhaps, only to avoid this, the deed of agreement came into existence permitting use of the said trade mark by both the parties in respect of the goods that are being manufactured by each of the firms. Hence, taking into consideration all the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajni Dua v. Bhushan Kumar , PTC 18 , that the family arrangement should be respected in the welfare of the family, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, especially, taking into consideration of the fact that the applicants do not dispute the execution of the Deed of Agreement.

Either all the three must be permitted to use the trade mark giving regard to the family arrangement or all the three should be prohibited from using the trade mark by virtue of the provision under Section 24 of the Act, as no one is entitled to use the mark independently on the dissolution of the partnership subject to the terms and conditions of the partnership deeds, which came into existence on the same day, do not provide any term for the proprietorship of the said trade mark.

Hence, the rights of the parties with regard to the use of the trade mark would cover only under the deed of agreement. Hence, instead of preventing all the three, i. However, keeping in mind the statutory bar for the use of the same trade mark by more than one and keeping in mind the intention of the parties as seen from the deed of agreement, we feel that some condition can be imposed.

Similarly, the first applicant is also permitted to use the trade mark 'TEXMO' with some additional word to identify its goods and register the same with the Registrar of Trade Marks. Yet another pertinent fact to be remembered is in O. Texmo Industries formed the sister concern Aqua Pump Industries in the year as partners and in the year , they formed the firm Aqua Sub Engineering as partners.

When once the partners of the partnership firm are the registered proprietors of the trade mark till the dissolution of the partnership comes into effect, the partners of the firm are deemed to continue as the proprietors of the registered trade mark.

Texmo Industries are the registered proprietors of the trade mark. When on their own volition, the new firms were constituted and the manufacture of products was divided, there cannot be any license in favour of the newly constituted firms. The partners being the registered proprietors of the trade mark cannot grant any license to use the trade mark in their own favour.

If at all any license comes to play, it can be only by the registered proprietors of the trade mark in favour of a third party for the use of the said registered trade mark.

In this case, as already stated, the brothers being the partners of the registered firm, they are entitled to use their registered trade mark in respect of all their goods provided the goods fall within the classified group for the use of the trade mark. On the death of one of the brothers, the second applicant had been inducted as the partner in all the three firms and thereby the second applicant and the third respondent became the registered proprietors of the trade mark.

When the division came in , both the partners of the firm being the registered proprietors of the trade mark, thought fit to arrive at a family arrangement by the division of the business, i.

Texmo Industries started the Aqua Pump Industries in and the Aqua Sub Engineering in and made a division of the manufacturing of the goods by the respective three firms. Hence, the second applicant and the third respondent might have thought prudent to divide the business as such for each branch and executed the three deeds of partnership and dissolution dated In terms of those deeds, the second applicant to take the Texmo Industries and the third respondent to take the other two, the Aqua Pump Industries and the Aqua Sub Engineering.

When this division of business had been decided, both thought sensible in entering into a separate agreement for the proprietorship and use of the trade mark by all the three firms respectively since the partnership and dissolution deeds are silent on this aspect. A separate deed of agreement was entered into about which there is no dispute. This deed of agreement seems to have come into existence only to reinforce the manner in which the business of the three firms were carried on and to continue the same in the same manner as all along it has been carried on.

When the deed of agreement came into existence alongwith the deeds of dissolution and partnership on the same day, it has to be taken as part of the same transaction, especially, when it deals with the ownership and use of the trade mark. As already stated, when the second applicant and the third respondent are the proprietors of the trade mark 'TEXMO' and when the deeds of dissolution did not specify any clause regarding the proprietorship, none of the partners can claim exclusive ownership over the said trade mark.

Hence, no question of license, assignment, permission or consent by one to the other would arise. The deed of agreement between the parties confirms the joint proprietorship and specifies that after dissolution, all the three firms can use the same in respect of their goods. As the goods were bifurcated, there is no confusion between each item of product specified in the Schedule in respect of each firm is to come out from the respective unit.

Hence, what is arrived at under the deed of agreement is only an agreement accepting the joint proprietorship and to use the trade mark in future as they were all using before. Even though respondents No. Hence, the right of assignment claimed by respondents No. When the third respondent agreed to retire from the partnership of the first applicant firm by paying a sum of Rs.

If all these factors are taken into consideration, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the deed of agreement did not confer any proprietorship and it gave only a license in favour of respondents No. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has raised only the technical pleas that the Registrar had passed the order of assignment without any notice to the applicants and TM 17 was filed by a person who has no authority and further TM 17 has to be filed by the registered proprietor and in the absence of the application from the second applicant, TM 17 ought not to have been ordered.

Deputy Director of Consolidation , , and Madho Das v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors. Paramveer Singh and Anr. Paras Special Machine Co. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors. Motia Rani and Ors. As the matter has been elaborately argued before us on merits and we discussed the merits of the case in detail, we do not think that the order of the Registrar can be set aside on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, we take the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants. In the case , the appellant's name has been removed as a registered proprietor without any supporting document. In the absence of supporting document, the Court held the notice ought to have been served on the other side.

Similarly, in the case reported in 16 PTC 69, a suit was pending between the registered proprietors and as such, the order of assignment passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in favour of one of the parties cannot be sustained as there was already existing dispute between the parties.

The Registrar ought to have issued notice to the other side. In the case reported in PTC SUPPL 1 , the plea was that the order was obtained on the basis of forged document with the object of depriving the appellant.

In the case reported in 25 PTC , the Registration was obtained in favour of one group of partners after the dissolution of partnership by concealing of material facts and without placing the deed of dissolution.

If the facts of the particular cases are taken into consideration, the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel are of no help. As already stated by us, the use of the trade mark by all the three firms having the same partners was admitted. Even after the death of one of the partners, his wife, the second applicant was taken in as a partner and the same arrangement continued.

In , when the dissolution and reconstitution took place, the deed of agreement was entered into between the second applicant and the third respondent expressing their intention to continue the same arrangement.

When all these materials were placed before the Registrar, the Registrar, having considered these matters has passed the order of recordal of proprietorship of the partners of the respondent No. Having raised all these issues before us for consideration and we having considered each and every issue elaborately, we do not think it necessary to rectify the register just on the technical plea, especially when the transactions were not denied by the applicants. Ravi Kumar as proprietors of the above mark.

When the deeds of dissolution and reconstitution of partnership were silent regarding the proprietorship of the trade mark, it is not clear as to how the applicants made a request to register them as proprietors. Admittedly, such a request was made by the applicants without any consent from the respondents or by way of any joint application.

When the applicants themselves at the first instance, initiated action to get the transfer of proprietorship in their favour without any consent from the respondents or at least from third respondent, it is not open to them to complain about the conduct of the respondents, who initiated action to thwart the attempt of the applicants to get the exclusive right over the trade mark contrary to the terms of the deed of agreement entered into between the second applicant and the third respondent.

Likewise, the second applicant cannot claim any goodwill in the business of the respondent Nos. When the partners divide the partnership business, they decided to take the three firms independently with the goodwill of the business.

It is an admitted fact that right from the inception of the respondent Nos. Hence, the respondent Nos. Hence, it cannot be said that the third respondent did not get any goodwill under the deed of agreement. While deciding the case, we are very much aware about the provisions under Section 24 of the said Act, which is extracted below:. Sub-section 1 generally prohibits registration of two or more persons who use or propose to use the trade mark independently as proprietor thereof.

The Sub-section 2 provides exception, which is clear as the opening words of the provision indicate. Sub-section 2 provides that the relations of two or more persons interested in a trade mark or such that no one of them is entitled as between himself and the other or others to use it except a on behalf of both or all of them, or b in relation to an article with which both or all of them are connected in the course of the trade.

Those persons may be registered as joint proprietors of the trade mark. Sub-clause a covers the cases of co-partnership. Sub-clause b covers article with which partnership is connected.

As per the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act , , partners use the mark on behalf of one another and all of them. It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines P Limited ,.

The trade mark cannot have two origins. Therefore, when one of the partners had proclaimed himself as a rival to the other and as joint owner, it is not permissible in law.

It is an admitted fact that the parties have obtained the advice of the trade mark agencies before the said agreement was executed. When the Deed of Agreement confers proprietorship of the trade marks on all the three firms, it would clearly indicate that all the parties want to continue the use of the said trade mark by dividing the business and bifurcating the goods for each of the firm.

Hence, taking into consideration all the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajni Dua v.

5 stars based on 33 reviews