Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3404 2016 SLD 3404 2016 CLD 1706
Sindh High Court

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Salman Ahmed Shaikh for Plaintiff. Muhammad Sarfraz Sulehry for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.

JAVED AKHTAR CHAUHAN--Plaintiff

VS

MUMTAZ ALI AND 2 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

Trade Marks Ordinance, (XIX of 2001)------- --------Ss. 73, 85, 86, 92 & 96-------Paris Convention of Intellectual Property, 1833-------Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54-------Trade name, protection of-------Plaintiff claimed to be registered owner of trademark in question and sought injunction against infringement of the same-------Defendants claimed to be owner of trademark in question which was well-known in Pakistan and plaintiff had been agent of defendants-------Plaintiff claimed that defendants (foreign company) did not seek permission to run their business in Pakistan-------Validity-------Admission of plaintiff that defendant company had been continuing its business under same mark was sufficient to indicate its intention to enjoy privileges available to such mark under Paris Convention of Intellectual Property, 1833-------If such practice was allowed, then in every country any agent or other person would start that practice by getting registration from that area by taking benefits of goodwill attached with such well-known mark-------Such practice would mean nothing but negate the Convention which otherwise provided protection to the creator and such scheme was enshrined to save rights of intellectual property-------Not only that, but such agent would become entitled to fruits of name and goodwill attached with such mark, and the same could not be allowed to happen because name and goodwill were not earned/established overnights by mere preparing a product alone but the efforts and finance which had made that mark to stand in the market with its own name-------No prima facie case or balance of convenience was available to plaintiff and application for injunction so filed by plaintiff was devoid of substance which was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 2000 Kar. 139; 2007 CLC 1610 and 2003 PLC 26 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE:--------- By the dint of this order I decide captioned applications filed by plaintiff and defendant No.3. Through CMA No.17174/2015 plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief as under:- "..... grant temporary injunction against the defendants, their servant, agents, representatives and all persons claiming…
🔒
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