The Principles of Natural Justice find a place in all jurisdictions and legal regimen. The law seems frivolous without the edicts of the principle and governs every branch of law, irrespective whether new or old. Although, the principles are too well-established to require an introduction to, yet every once in a while, they become the bone of contention in legal haggles. In witness to this, is the case of Vetsfarma Ltd. v. Vest Pharma Ltd & Ors. [2008 (37) PTC 296].
Vetsfarma Pvt. Ltd. aggrieved from the order of the Registry, with respect to three trademark applications moved to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in pursuance of Section 100 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They contended on the grounds of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, stating that no opportunity to be heard had been afforded to them. Furthermore, they stated that the order was not a "speaking order".
Presenting the facts before the Board it was stated that the two contending companies, viz. Vetsfarma and Vest Pharma, were controlled by two families. On differences having arisen between the two, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into, whereby Vetsfarma agreed to transfer two registered marks along with eight unregistered marks. It was decided that a formal deed of assignment be executed as well, in exchange for consideration. The deeds were assigned on two dates, and the latter of the two deeds led to the cancellation of the assignment made vide the first deed.
The counsel for Vest Pharma averred that in pursuance to the deeds and TM-23, signed for the respective parties, a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) was entered into between the parties, where by particulars of the earlier MOU were altered and the total number of marks decreased from ten to seven. A marketing agreement was also executed between the parties, which ratified the assignment. Vetsfarma contends that in spite of cancellation, the deed incorporating the same was neither considered, nor brought to the notice of the Registrar, and that the assignment deed was proceeded with suppressing the facts. Also, no hearing was afforded to Vest Pharma.
Vest Pharma contended that the order being passed on the basis of the joint application, no notice of hearing was required. They contended that there was no dispute with regard to the assignment, however, if one existed, it centered on the deed of 'cancellation of assignment'. It was asserted that the same was a got-up document and a copy of the bank statement was produced in support. Vets Pharma basing its averment on the Principles of Natural Justice, denied the impugned order to be a mere communication.
A plethora of cases were advocated by either side and referred to, by the Court in making its decision. The Court , taking note of Vest Pharma's contention of the memorandum being one of compromise, categorically stated, that in view of TM-23 being jointly executed, and no opportunity of hearing being afforded to Vetsfarma , and the same being undenied by Vest Pharma, the principles of Natural Justice had been violated and the impugned order was set aside.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
