| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1236 2018 SLD 1236 2018 CLD 725 |
Competition Commission of Pakistan
Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013, decided on 23-5-2017. Dates of hearing: 13th April, 8th June, 28th September, 26th October, 23rd November, 21st December, 2016, 11th January, 1st February, 8th March, 11th, 19th April and 9th May, 2017.
JUSTICE (RETD.) MIAN FASIH UL MULK, CHAIRPERSON
Faraz Fazal Sheikh and Haseeb Ali Quddusi for Appellants. Amjad Hameed Ghouri for
Respondent No.1. Bulent Sohail for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013, decided on 23-5-2017. Dates of hearing: 13th April, 8th June, 28th September, 26th October, 23rd November, 21st December, 2016, 11th January, 1st February, 8th March, 11th, 19th April and 9th May, 2017.
JUSTICE (RETD.) MIAN FASIH UL MULK, CHAIRPERSON
Faraz Fazal Sheikh and Haseeb Ali Quddusi for Appellants. Amjad Hameed Ghouri for
Respondent No.1. Bulent Sohail for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
RAJA ASIR MUNIR AND ANOTHER
VS
MESSRS DHL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----S. 28(1)---Complaint filed before Competition Commission---"Duly authorized person"---Scope---Company secretary---Complaint was filed by the company secretary, which not only bore the signatures but also the seal of the complainant-company---Certified copy of Board resolution of the complainant-company was also annexed with the complaint---In the said Board resolution along with the company secretary, Chief Executive Officer of the company was also authorized on behalf of company to take all necessary measures, required in such regard before the Competition Commission and all courts, arbitrators, tribunals, forums or any administrative authority---Power of attorney of the counsel was also duly signed by the company secretary who was duly authorized in such regard---Complaint before the Competition Commission had been competently filed in such circumstances. (b) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----S. 10(1)--- Appeal before Competition Appellate Tribunal---Fraudulent use of a logo trademark---Deceptive marketing practices---Allegation against appellant-companies was that they used logos and marks, which were identical in colour and style to the respondent-company's trademark, which prima facie gave an impression that the appellants were authorized dealers of the respondent---Competition Commission concluded that the manner in which marks under question were printed and advertised look deceptively similar to the trademark of respondent---Consequently the appellants were penalized vide the impugned ---Validity---Although the appellants were doing business in their own name but they were using a logo which was deceptively similar to the respondent's trademark for which no plausible justification had been provided---Appellants had used their logos in a manner identical to that of the respondent with identical colours, schemes and design---Such resemblance between the logos was likely to cause confusion and deception---Appellants had opened outlets and were carrying on their business clearly and openly using the respondent's logo---Such use was unauthorized and constituted an act of deceptive marketing practice within the…
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