Law:

Section:

(a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)-------Ss. 21, 43 & 74---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Infringement and passing off of registered trade mark---Application for permanent injunction---Contention of plaintiff was that he was marketing under the Trade Mark of ROOH AFZA label but defendant had started manufacturing, packing and marketing a syrup under the Trade Mark ROOH-E-SAMAR label and both the marks were identical, confusing and deceptively similar with each other visually as well as phonetically---Interim injunction, application for---Validity---Injunction was a form of equitable relief and was to be issued in aid of equity and justice but only where a person had established all the three ingredients in his/her favour---Both 'Sharbat Rooh Afza' and 'Rooh-e-Samar' had no phonetic similarities---Registration of 'mark' would give to its proprietor an exclusive right to use the trade mark and registration was a prima facie evidence of its validity---Infringement of such right could not be allowed to hold the field but before restraining one from continuing with lawful trade or business it must be established prima facie that his right being hit by exception could not be allowed to continue---Similarity between two products/brands these should so resemble that an ordinary consumer might not differ between what he intended to purchase or what was presented to him---Bare look of both the products did not result into any confusion because not only the colour scheme but also the calligraphy and its manner were quite different from each other---Mere having photo-graph/picture of different fruits was not sufficient to believe the plea of plaintiff that label of defendant's product 'Rooh-e-Samar' would cause 'confusion' or 'deception' to its customers of 'Sharbat Rooh Afza'---Colour scheme, calligraphy and picture of fruits of products was entirely different with considerable distinction to an ordinary eye---Label of product of defendant would not result in causing a 'deception' or 'confusion' to the customer of plaintiff---No case of 'confusion' or 'deception' having been made out, plaintiff had no prima facie case in his favour to…

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