Law: Competition Act, 2010

Section: 10,10(1),10(2)(a)(b),28,28(1)(a),30,59

Law: Trade Marks Rules, 2004

Section: Clause,36,4th Schedule.

Law: Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007

Section: 26(2)(e),30(2)

(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 10 & 59---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Preamble---Deceptive marketing practices---Competition Act, 2010 to override other laws---Distribution of false or misleading information---Fraudulent use of another s trademark---Pendency of proceedings before court regarding right to use trade mark---Effect---Complainant urged that the respondent had commenced its housing/real estate development business by adopting a trade/service mark and symbol deceptively similar to that of complainant s registered trade/service mark---Respondent contended that the proceedings under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 were pending adjudication before High Court, hence the Commission could not proceed in the matter---Validity---Proceedings pending before High Court under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 pertained to violation of trade mark whereas the proceedings before the Commission were pending adjudication for deceptive marketing practices, which were distinct in nature and were not conflicting---Complainant was a real estate developer which marketed its project under a trade mark duly registered with the tradmarks Registry---Respondent had used the similar name and symbol for marketing and promotion of its real estate project---Respondent had failed to produce any documentary evidence showing authorization for the use of the trade mark---Complainant and respondent were in the business of real estate development in Pakistan---Town marketed by complainant was located in District I whereas town marketed by respondent was located in District G ---Use of similar words and symbols could easily deceive an ordinary consumer/investor and he could assume that the projects in both districts were of the same company or at least of the same group---Both parties were operating in the same line of business therefore both companies were targeting the same set of prospective consumers/investors so chances of deception and resultant harm to the competitor were multiplied---Commission held that the respondent was misleading consumers by using a trade name that was deceptively similar to that of complainant s registered trade mark and symbol and that…

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