Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2873 2015 SLD 2873 2015 CLD 1448
Sindh High Court
Suit Nos. 1461 and 1584 of 2013, decided on 19th January, 2015.
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
Khurram Gul Ghory and Mirza Mehmood Baig for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 1461 of 2013). Khurram Gul Ghory and Mirza Mehmood Baig for Defendant No. 3 (in Suit No. 1584 of 2013). Asim Mansoor Khan, Anwar Mansoor Khan, Salman Shaikh and Imdad Ali for Plaintiff

INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Authorized Signatory--Plaintiff

VS

SHOAIB AHMED SHEIKH and 9 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 11, 33, 43 & 7(2)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2---Evidence of entries in Register and things done by Registrar of Trademarks---Registration to be prima facie evidence of validity of ownership of trade mark---Application for interim injunction---Scope---Plaintiff claimed to be registered proprietor of a trademark, and sought to restrain defendant from infringing its registered trade mark---Contention of plaintiff was, inter alia, that application of plaintiff for registration of said trademark was accepted by the Registrar and said trademark was then entered into the Register of Trademarks and a certificate of registration was also issued to the plaintiff in the prescribed manner---Contention of the defendant, on the other hand, was that the said certificate of registration was a fabricated and manipulated document and the same position was reflected in the written statements of the official defendants from the office of the Registrar---Held, that said certificate was not issued by the Registrar himself and therefore, the position adopted by the official defendants in their written statements must be given primacy, whose position was that no certificate duly signed and stamped by the competent authority had been issued to plaintiff and they also deliberately avoided stating in their written statements that the trademark was owned by the plaintiff, which they could have easily done---Said omission on part of the official defendants seemed to be deliberate, which conclusion was strengthened by the fact that it appeared from the said written statements that some sort of internal inquiry was ongoing with regard to the plaintiff's application and files in respect thereof---Stance of the official defendants, therefore, cast serious doubts on the veracity and integrity of the certificate relied upon the plaintiff---Certificate in question must have been issued by the Registrar or an officer duly authorized in terms of S. 7(2) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, which was not done in the present case---Certificate of registration, under normal circumstances, was the only evidence that…
🔒
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