My Dilemma, Change In Name Of Trademarks, As Subsequent Proprietor/Owner!

 

What defines transmission, assignment, transfer, or change in name per se; should that matter at the time of recordal of the subsequent name, when the entire due process had already been followed, of course, except in the case of when consent or approval is supposed to be taken for the recordal of transmission, assignment, transfer; especially when it comes to the collective or certification marks?

But where’s the dilemma in it? Indeed there’s, as it lies in the labyrinth of the process, as precisely summarized herein below!

Suppose, let’s presume, an LLP is converted to a Private Limited, or, vice versa, albeit, I don’t have a background of corporate law, yet, at the time of filing for the change in name only; be it anywhere, or, be it termed as transmission (by the operation of law), or, assignment (in case the either party exercised their prerogative/rights), or, by transfer; then, does it matter how the change has happened at the time of recordal, especially knowing the fact that the entire due process of the conversion or winding up or dissolution etc. had already followed at different medium levels; whether in front of the registrar of companies, or, partnerships, or, at any other appropriate office? And then why can’t it be merely just -> change in name? Why it matters, and, how it may change the entire due process! Here is an example in detail. It might look to you that this is a meticulous thing I’m talking about, yet, unless we dissect the smaller things, we can’t resolve bigger things!

The question comes, what’s in the change in name then? My theory is, shouldn’t there be only one metric applied, to record the change in the name of the subsequent proprietor/owner, rather, being subjected to iterative permutations and combinations of how this change happened, by introducing different fee structures, that defines different words like transmission, assignment, transfer, or change in name per se, because, as I mentioned in the above section, even the question would arise as under what category, the documents should be considered as, as I’ve stated in the above example. Now a corporate attorney may have a different point of view, as it is a change in the constitution of the organization; but should this be discussed, again, as was already accomplished at another office, earlier, at the time of recrodal?

For example, if the name has been changed vide transmission i.e. by the death of any party, and it has been brought on record due to the transmission; or, if in case of the assignment; except in case of with or without the goodwill or where the consent required; or whether it has been assigned by the private to public or to partnership or by the proprietor, or vide any other means; then, should that process that was already followed be discussed again?

Conclusion: Let there be one part of the petition to record the change in the name; rather been subjected it to the dissection of how it was achieved, when the process was already followed at the appropriate office earlier!

How about that? 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi