Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 282 2011 SLD 282 2011 CLD 285
Sindh High Court
H.C.A. No.297 and C.M.A. No.1340 of 2006, decision dated:4-10-2010
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE
Haider Waheed for Appellant.Asim Iqbal for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2

Messrs TEAM NAYYER (PVT.) LIMITED through Authorized AttorneyVSSUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED and another

Law: Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000

Section: 8,2(a),(e)

(a) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)--- ----S. 8, proviso---Infringement---Interim relief, grant of---Principle---Grant of interim relief requires plaintiff to establish (at least) three things: a prima fade case; validity of his design and its infringement by defendant. (b) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)---S. 2 (a) & (e)---Terms "article" and "design"---Distinction---Design is separate and distinct from article to which it is tipplied and it is the former that can be registered and not the latter---In determining whether a design has been infringed or whether it is valid, the first exercise that must be carried out is to determine what is the "article" in question and what are the "features" of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament that are being "applied" to the article. Dover Ltd. v Nurnberger Celluloidwaren (1910) 27 RPC 498; Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 2520; Intellectual Property Law by Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman (2001), pg. 581; Gramophone Co. Ltd. v. Magazine Holder Co. (1910) 27 RPC 151; Amp Inc. v. Utilux Pvt. Ltd. (1972) RPC 103 and Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc. (1988) RPC 343 ref. (c) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)--- ----Ss. 2(a), (d), (e), 6 & 8(1) proviso---Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S.15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2--High Court appeal---Interim injunction and damages---Registered design, infringement of---Plaintiff claimed that defendant had infringed his design which was registered in his name---Single Judge of High Court declined to grant interim relief on the ground that plaintiff had also claimed damages against defendant---Validity---Registered designed was infringed if it, or a design not substantially different from it, was applied to an article without permission of the registered proprietor and the article was made, imported, sold, hired or offered for sale, thus test was one of "substantial difference"---If allegedly infringing article carried a design that was substantially different from the registered design, then there was no infringement and if there was no substantial difference, then the…
🔒
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