Case Details

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.

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(a) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962)--- ----Ss.39, 41 & 42---Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) [since repealed], Ss.8, 10, 21, 23 & 24---Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012), S.19--Dispute as to ownership/right to use trade name---Trade name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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register