Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 876 2020 SLD 876 2020 CLD 277
Competition Commission of Pakistan
File No. 295/Nimco Corner/OFT/CCP/2017, decided on 23rdDecember, 2019, Dates of hearing: 1st October and 5thDecember, 2019.
MS. BUSHRA NAZ MALIK, MEMBERS
Barrister Abdur Rehman for Mr. Nimco Corner.Nemo for Nimko Corner.Haseeb Zafar, Ms. Warda Bhatti and Hannad Din Ch. for Mr. Karachi Nimco.

Law: Competition Act, 2010

Section: 10,37,37(2)

(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 10 37---Deceptive marketing practices---Enquiry---Laches---Retrospective operation of law---Scope---Complainant alleged that the respondent was disseminating false and misleading information by using virtually identical firm names, trademarks and by copying of distinctive items of product packing , while relying on the principle of laches, contended that the complainant had kept silent for several years and had not objected to the infringement of its rights when the respondent was commercializing its business activities---Validity---Neither S. 37(2) of Competition Act, 2010 nor its any other provision of the Act put any time limitation as to when to file a complaint for violation thereof---Application of Competition Act, 2010 was not only extendable to violations occurring in the present, but, to the violations occurred in the past---Any person violating the provisions of the Competition Act, 2010 could not be allowed to get away with his violation merely on the fact that the time had lapsed---Objection raised by respondent was not tenable and was rejected. Al-Karam Textile Mills v. Mehtab Chawla 2007 CLD 966 distinguished. (b) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 10 59---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S. 81---Deceptive marketing practices---Competition Act, 2010 to override other laws---Effect of acquiescence---Scope---Complainant alleged that the respondent was disseminating false and misleading information by using virtually identical firm names, trademarks and by copying of distinctive items of product packing , while placing reliance on S. 81 of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, contended that its violations were in the knowledge of complainant for over five years and the complainant had not taken any action, therefore, the principle of acquiescence applied to the case---Validity---Onus to discharge the burden of prior knowledge was upon the respondent, however, no evidence was presented to affirm the prior knowledge of infringement for over five years---Competition Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to take action and adjudicate on any matter provided in the Competition Act, 2010---Section 59 of…
🔒
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