| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1813 2026 SLD 1813 = 2026 CLD 479 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.1099 of 2016, decided on 1st October, 2025.
Presented By: Before Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J
Mehdi Tirmizi for Appellant. Barrister Munawar us Salam, Barrister Isha Shahid Bilal Hassan and Shuaib Rashid for
Respondents.
Regular First Appeal No.1099 of 2016, decided on 1st October, 2025.
Presented By: Before Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J
Mehdi Tirmizi for Appellant. Barrister Munawar us Salam, Barrister Isha Shahid Bilal Hassan and Shuaib Rashid for
Respondents.
MANZAR LATIF MIAN---Appellant
VERSUS
Messrs DEPILEX (PVT.) LTD., through Chief Executive, Ms. Masarrat Misbah---Respondent
Law: Copyright Ordinance, 1962
Section: XXXIV,39,41,42
Law: Trade Marks Act, 1940
Section: V,8,10,21,23,24
Law: Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012
Section: XXII,19
Law: Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001
Section: XIX,40,74
(a) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962)--- ----Ss.39, 41 & 42---Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) [since repealed], Ss.8, 10, 21, 23 & 24---Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012), S.19--Dispute as to ownership/right to use trade name---Trade name belonging to a partnership---Dissolution of partnership---Effect---One partner using trade name after dissolution---Legality---Passing off, doctrine of---Misrepresentation and deception---Injury to goodwill---Actionable wrong---Scope---Facts:---The appellant and the respondent entered into a partnership to run salon businesses; a dispute then arose over whether the trade name Depilex formed part of the partnership or belonged exclusively to the respondent---Intellectual Property Tribunal decreed the respondent s suit by declaring it the lawful copyright owner of Depilex and permanently restraining the appellant from using/passing off business under that name, hence the present appeal---Held: As per partnership agreement the trade name Depilex was intended to be used under a valid franchise arrangement and not independently by either partner---The salon was originally named Depilex pursuant to the partnership deed, which clearly provided that the business would operate under a franchise or licence arrangement---Consequently, upon dissolution of the partnership, the continued use of the said name being subject to franchise rights was impermissible and without legal sanction---Impugned judgment and decree of Intellectual Property Tribunal was upheld---Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962)--- ----Ss.41 & 42---Registered copyright---Essence and significance---Presumption of correctness and validity---The presumption of correctness is attached to registration under S. 42 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962---A valid certificate of registration cannot be invalidated collaterally unless rectified under S. 41. (c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----Ss.8, 10, 21, 23 & 24---Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Preamble--Intellectual property---Trademark---Copyright---Registration, process of---Legal framework and procedure highlighted. Messrs…