| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 759 2016 SLD 759 2016 CLD 1036 |
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 157 of 2015, decided on 27th May, 2015. Date ofhearing: 27th May, 2015.
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J
Muzamil Akhtar Shabir for Appellant.
F.A.O. No. 157 of 2015, decided on 27th May, 2015. Date ofhearing: 27th May, 2015.
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J
Muzamil Akhtar Shabir for Appellant.
Messrs SHAUKAT SOAP AND GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.VSMessrs SHAUKAT BROTHERSOAP MANUFACTURERS (PVT.) LTD.
Law:
Section:
Muhammad Raheel Kamran Sheikh for Respondent. (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Principles---Court dealing with an application under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C. has to consider as to which of the parties has a prima facie case, balance of convenience or inconvenience and likely to suffer irreparable loss, in case of grant or refusal of interim injunction. (b) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)--- ----S. 46(2)---Infringement of trademark---Reliefs---In an action for infringement, under S. 46(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, all such reliefs by way of damages, injunctions and accounts can be availed by proprietor of a trademark not as alterative to one another. (c) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)--- ----S.46(2)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Suit for injunction---Interim relief, grant of---Infringement of registered trademark---Plaintiff company was using registered trademark 'Shaukat' for its products (soap) whereas defendant company in the same category of goods started using trademark 'Crystal Shaukat'---Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiff---Validity---Defendant had dishonestly adopted trademark 'Shaukat' which was the registered trademark of plaintiff---Defendant's addition of word 'Crystal' before the word 'Shaukat' to make it 'Crystal Shaukat' had no bearing or consequences and did not protect it from being liable for infringement of registered trademark 'Shaukat Soap'---Such was as the public might assume that 'Crystal Shaukat' was yet another product of the same party which was selling products under the trademarks 'Shaukat Soap' or was another quality or range of product and/or manufactured under permission or authorization of the owners of the registered trademark 'Shaukat Soap', which was being sold in Pakistan for decades---High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and restrained defendant from using word 'Shaukat' as trademark either alone or along with the word 'Crystal' or in conjunction with any other word or device along with a wrapper of soap which was…