Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 1047 1992 SLD 1047 1992 CLC 2036
Sindh High Court
Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 1989, decided on 23rd September, 1990. dates of hearing: 29th and 30th August, 1990
SALEEM AKHTAR, J
Sultan Ahmed Shaikh for Appellant. S.D. Rana for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, LASANI ENGINEERING COMPANY

VS

PUNJAB ENGINEERING COMPANY and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----Ss. 8 & 10---Registration of trade mark---Trade mark sought to be registered by applicant, was advertised for inviting objections from persons who wanted to oppose that---Merely because Registrar had allowed trade mark applied for by applicant to be advertised, would not lead to conclusion that it must be registered or if opposition was filed and duly explained Registrar was bound to grant registration of same---Mere advertisement would not confer any right to be registered. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXX, R.4 (2)---Speaking order, would not mean that it should be long and elaborate containing all minor details, but it should give reasons for decision in a clear manner which could be precise and should be intelligible---Major part of order in dispute contained statement of facts, contentions of parties and it was only in last paragraph that observations were made by Authority passing that order---Such order could not be termed as non-speaking order, especially when issues involved in case were dealt with in analytical manner, mind was applied and due consideration was given to facts, law and contentions of parties.--[Judgment] (c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----Ss.8 & 10---Registration of trade mark---Where goods and marks were identical or similar, Court had to be very cautious in granting application for registration of such trade mark---Court had to take. into consideration public interest involved in it, deception and confusion to be caused to them, nature of goods, nature of customers who would use it and also whether adoption of device and mark was bona fide and honest. Master Thread Ball v. M.A. Karim PLD 1969 Dacca 734; Punjab Engineering Corpn. v. Muhammad Yaqoob and another 1989 CLC 368; 7-Up Co. v. The Registrar, Trade Marks and another 1987 MLD 91; Montgomery Flour and General Mills Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1.973 Kar. 567 and PLD 1990 SC 313 ref. JUDGMENT The appellant is trading under the name and style of Lasani Engineering Company at Rahimyar Khan and claims to be nationally renowned merchant and manufacturer of agricultural implements. On 16-2-1984 he applied for…
🔒
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