Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 1060 2013 SLD 1060 2013 CLD 1531
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1282 of 2009, decision dated: 4-03-2013, hearingDATE : 13-02-2013
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE
Ms. Amna Salman for Plaintiff.Nemo for Defendant.

VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) INC. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

VS

MEMON PHARMACEUTICAL THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR

Law: Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)

Section: 2

(a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)---Ss. 2(xxxv), 8(a), 14, 17, 18, 22, 28, 33 & 39---Registered trade mark, infringement of---Permanent injunction, suit for---Plaintiff being proprietor of registered trade mark "MALTOFER" alleged its illegal use by defendant under imitated trade mark "MALTOS" in respect of pharmaceutical preparation---Proof---No trade mark or any part thereof in respect of goods or services would be registered, if same would cause deception and/or create confusion---Proprietor of a registered trade mark has an exclusive right therein and its violation was not permissible under law---Defendant could not be permitted to defeat vested right of registered proprietor (plaintiff), who entered the field first---Defendant's trade mark "MALTOS" was mala fide replacement of letters "FER" of plaintiff's registered trade mark "MALTOFER' with letter "S" to make the same "MALTOS"---Defendant's trade mark "MALTOS" was phonetically, visually, structurally, deceptively and confusingly similar and nearly resembling plaintiff's registered trade mark "MALTOFER"---Defendant had deliberately chosen to use trade mark "MALTOS" with a view to sell deceptively lower quality of goods by creating confusion qua plaintiff's best quality of goods available in market under trade mark "MALTOFER"---Nothing was available on record on behalf of defendant in rebuttal of plaintiff's evidence---No one under law could use trade mark of someone to deceive public and cause injury to its owner's goodwill and/or reputation---Plaintiff had not suffered damages/losses as he had filed suit immediately after getting knowledge about infringement of its registered trade mark by defendant---Plaintiff became entitled to relief of permanent injunction in view of its un-rebutted evidence and such dishonest act of defendant---Suit was decreed in circumstances. Jamia Indus Limited v. Caltex Oil (Pak) Ltd. and another PLD 1984 SC 8; Messrs Alpha Sewing Machine Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and another PLD 1990 SC 1074; Messrs Tabaq Restaurant v. Messrs Tabaq Restaurant 1987 SCMR 1090; Messrs Mehran Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Chiltan Ghee Mill (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2001 SCMR…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492