Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VII,XXXIX,R.1,2,10,11

Law: Trade Marks Rules, 2004

Section: R.11,71,88

Law: Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001

Section: 85,86

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, Rr. 10 & 11---Return or rejection of plaint---Jurisdiction of court---Scope---Plaint can only be rejected by a court which otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain suit/plaint and decide entire lis on its merits---If during such proceedings an application has been filed by defendant for rejection of plaint on grounds mentioned under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., court having such jurisdiction can decide application either way---Once it is pleaded on behalf of defendant that court has no jurisdiction and plaint be returned under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., then no application can be entertained under O. VII, R 11, C.P.C. by the same court---By filing such application defendant submits to jurisdiction of court and waives objections to that effect and therefore, cannot press upon an application under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C. for return of plaint.(b) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)-------S. 86---Trade Marks Rules, 2004, Rr. 11, 71, 88 & Fourth Schedule, Classes 18, 35---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Application for permanent injunction---Trademarks, infringement of---Parallel import---Plaintiffs were international brands who jointly owned and operated use of registered trademarks and were aggrieved of defendant infringing their trademark as well as passing-off same by selling such goods as licensed vendor under name and style of trademark of plaintiffs---Validity---Plaintiffs while making sales to company in another country had already reaped economic benefit from its trademarks through first putting goods on market and then even permitting its further export to defendant in Pakistan and could not be allowed any further benefit or protection to exercise any monopoly rights in relations to those very goods on which once an economic benefit had been earned---Plaintiffs had already made out prima facie case of infringement under S. 86 of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 as defendant even after submitting an undertaking before court was still using identical signage for which there was no consent of owner/proprietor of trademark/trade name in relation to goods and services falling within Classes 18…