| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 88 1965 SLD 88 1965 PLD 292 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 16-D of 1963, decision dated: 8th January 1965. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 24th August 1962, in Trade Mark Appeal No. 1 of 1960)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Hamidul Haq Chowdhury Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. M. G. Hafeez Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. S. Hoda Attorney for Appellant. Nurul Huda Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan (Ahmadur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instruct
Civil Appeal No. 16-D of 1963, decision dated: 8th January 1965. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 24th August 1962, in Trade Mark Appeal No. 1 of 1960)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Hamidul Haq Chowdhury Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. M. G. Hafeez Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. S. Hoda Attorney for Appellant. Nurul Huda Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan (Ahmadur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instruct
MESSRS CRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS
VS
(1) THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, CHITTAGONG AND (2) MESSRS PREMIER SOAP FACTORY
Law: Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)
Section: 15(1),76,2(1),10(2),7(1),37(2),84
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider questions raised in respect of registration of trade marks, namely: (1) that the Registrar had no right to limit the user of a trade mark to a particular area after having granted registration of other associated or similar marks containing substantially the same characteristics without any limitation or restriction as to area and (2) that, in any event, the same or similar trade marks could not be granted to other applicants even within a limited area-Third contention raised at hearing of appeal, also entertained. (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S. 2(1)(e) read with Ss. 10(2) & 37(2)-Limitations as to area on use of trade mark--Competence of Registrar to impose such limitations after and at time of granting registration-Identity of provisions between S. 2(1)(e), Trade Marks Act, 1940 and the English Trade Marks Act, 1938, S. 68. The scheme of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, as would appear from the reading of the definition given in clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 2, subsection (2) of section 10 and subsection (2) of section 37, is that limitations as to territory may lawfully be imposed under the said Act. Subsection (2) of section 37 expressly refers to non-user of a trade mark "in a particular place" within the, Provinces and the Capital of the -Federation and provides that in the case of such non-user being proved appropriate limitations may be imposed for curtailing the extent of the registration. If this can be done even after the registration has been ordered, there appears to be no legitimate reason why the same thing cannot be done at the time of granting the application for registration. The only difference in phraseology between section 2(1) (e), Trade Marks Act, 1940 and section 68 of the English Trade Marks Act, 1938 is that the English Act uses the words "in any place within" instead of the word "within". This difference in terminology does not indicate any difference in the intent or the purport of these words. They both mean the same thing and merely qualify the words "sold or otherwise traded in". If it is conceded that under the English…
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