| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 450 1991 SLD 450 1991 PLD 27 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.219 of 1988, heard on 20-09-1990.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Date of hearing. 25th April, 1990.
Civil Appeal No.219 of 1988, heard on 20-09-1990.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Date of hearing. 25th April, 1990.
KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA (also trading as TOSHIBA CORPORATION)
VS
Ch. MUHAMMAD ALTAF (trading as MURAD INDUSTRIES (REGD.) and another,
Law:
Section:
(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)----- Ss. 10 & 8 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) --- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court's view that order of the Registrar, Trade Marks, could not be set aside unless, in addition to the same being wrong, it was also "absurd" and/or "perverse". (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)- ---- Ss. 10 & 8 --- Application for registration of a trade mark which was phonetically identical with the registered trade mark --- Relevant consideration for the Registrar of Trade Marks should have been to take the factors as existing on the date the application for registration was filed --- Where deception and confusion were the grounds of opposition, honesty of intention in user could not be of any avail. PLD 1978 Kar. 161 and PlD 1969 Kar. 376 ref. (c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)- ---- Ss. 10 & 8 --- Application for registration of a trade mark which was phonetically identical with the registered trade mark --- View of Registrar of Trade Marks that not only the trade mark had to be identical/similar but also the goods covered by the trade mark had also to be identical/similar was not in accord with law, after the similarity of trade mark was established and phonetically it was found to be identical--Registrar of Trade Marks was required to examine as to whether there was likelihood of deception on account of goods of registered trade mark holder being similar or of the same description. PLD 1969 SC 477 ref (d) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)-- ---- Ss. 10 & 8 --- Application for registration of a trade mark which was phonetically identical with the registered trade mark --- Discretion of Registrar of Trade Marks comes in after a finding of fact has been recorded --- Registrar of Trade Marks does not have the discretion in determining whether the prohibition prescribed in Ss.8 and 10 has been incurred or not --- Registrar has no discretion, he has to record a finding of fact on the material before him --- If Registrar comes to the conclusion that matter falls within the prohibited category then he has no discretion but has to refuse registration --- Discretion of Registrar arises only when after…
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