Case Details

Citation(s)
1956 SLG 33 1956 SLD 33 1956 PLD 1
Sindh High Court
Civil Miscellaneous No. 390 of 1955, decided on 10th October 1955
CONSTANTINE, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J
Dr. Mahmud for Appellants. Sulleman Qureshi for
Respondents.

REXONA PROPRIETARY LTD.

VS

MAJID SOAP WORKS

Law:

Section:

Trade mark Infringement Interim injunction against -- When granted. In a case of infringement of trade mark, obviously there would be resemblances and differences, and the question must be decided by contrasting the striking resemblances with the striking differences, and where the conclusion is that one is intended to pass for the other, there is a case for an interim injunction. Lever v. Goodwin, XXXVI C. D. 1 ref. It is not necessary that any person should have been in fact deceived. A I R 1938 Cal. 458 ref. Where fraud is intended by the infringer, the argument that balance of convenience lay on his side, inasmuch as his being a small concern he would be ruined by the injunction, would not avail him. Normally, delay in taking action is fatal but where defend ant's conduct appeared to have been playing for time and putting off the plaintiff with promises to discontinue the infringement, delay would not matter, but where the infringe ment is a fraud on the public, interim injunction would be granted in spite of a certain amount of delay. JUDGMENT CONSTANTINE, C.J.--- The plaintiff appellant sued defendant respondent praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trade mark of the appellant lied from passing off his soap as that of the appellant. He applied also for temporary injunction pendente lite. This injunction was refused by our learned brother Muhammad Bakhsh, and hence the appeal, and this application for interim injunction. It is common ground that the trade mark of the appellant: was registered in 1943 and that this registration was advertised. It is common ground that the appellant's soap is widely sold in Pakistan and in Particular Karachi. The appellant has filed along with the appeal its own wrapper and that used by the defendant. Both are colored green, though not exactly the same shade of green. On the upper face of the wrapper when it is wrapped round the soap appear the name in cursive script, below that a horizontal bar in black with white letter ing, and below a circle with white and black in it. On the other sides appear on each wrapper the name in cursive script. The learned Judge held that the difference between…
🔒
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