| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2982 = 1962 SLD 2982 = 1962 PLD 690 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 113 of 1961, decided on 26th May 1962.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
Noorul Arifin assisted by N. A. Zahid for Plaintiffs. A. A. Zari and Syed Sharifuddin for Defendants. Dates of hearing : 1st, 3rd, 8th, 9th and 17th May 1962.
Suit No. 113 of 1961, decided on 26th May 1962.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui, J
Noorul Arifin assisted by N. A. Zahid for Plaintiffs. A. A. Zari and Syed Sharifuddin for Defendants. Dates of hearing : 1st, 3rd, 8th, 9th and 17th May 1962.
(1) MESSRS N. V. PHILIPS' GLOEILAMPENFABRIEKEN OF EINDHOVEN AND (2) MESSRS PHILIPS ELECTRICAL COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED-Plaintiffs
VERSUS
ELECTRIC LAMP MANUFACTURERS OF PAKISTAN LIMITED-Defendants
Law: Trade Mark Act, 1940
Section: Ss. 21, 22 (2) (a)
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 21, 22 (2) (a)---- Defendant (manufacturer) stamping on goods manufactured, trade mark of plaintiff, "for use of the plaintiff" who, and not the defendant, sold such goods in market-Held, defendant, was not "user" of trade mark. Trade mark-"Acquiescence"-User, by another, by way of "infringement" of trade mark, necessary, before owner of trade mark could be said to have "acquiesced" in such user- [Electriluc, Ltd. v. Electrix Ltd. (1953) 71 R P C 23 ref.]. Trade mark-"Abandonment"--Requiring "infringement", "numerous and notorious," so as to make mark publici juris. Trade mark-Estoppel against owner-Not to, be readily inferred-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115. Considering that an infringement of trade mark is usually a fraud on the public, estoppel is not to be readily inferred. In the present case, there was no representation by the owner of trade mark inducing the rival claimant to believe that he would become entitled to the use of the trade mark in his own right ; nor was there any evidence or circumstance to show that such claimant at any time honestly believed that the owner intended him to become the user of the trade mark in his own right, or that such claimant, in consequence of any representation, altered his contract to his detriment. Trade mark-"Distinctiveness"-Owner of trade mark getting goods manufactured by another (who claimed to be rival claimant) and selling goods for himself-Such claimant's name not appearing on goods-Trade mark retains its "distinctiveness." Trade mark--Party merely manufacturing goods for owner of trade mark --Manufacture does not affect right of owner. Manufacture simpliciter does not affect the right to the trade mark under which the manufactured goods are sold. A person may order a manufacturer to manufacture goods according to his order and direction, and upon the goods being so manufactured, if the person who ordered the goods, sells them under his own trade mark which he has acquired either by long user or by registration, the…