| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3060 2003 SLD 3060 2003 CLD 1549 |
Sindh High Court
Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000 and 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of 1999, decision dated: 24-03-2003.
ATA UR REHMAN, J
Sultan Ahmed Sheikh for Appellants (in Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000). Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan for
Respondents (in Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000). Salim Ghulam Hussain for Appellants (in Appeals Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of 19
Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000 and 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of 1999, decision dated: 24-03-2003.
ATA UR REHMAN, J
Sultan Ahmed Sheikh for Appellants (in Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000). Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan for
Respondents (in Appeals Nos.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of 2000). Salim Ghulam Hussain for Appellants (in Appeals Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of 19
UNIVERSAL TOBACCO (PVT.) LTD. and others --Appellants
VS
. JAPAN TOBACCO INC. and others --Respondents
Law:
Section:
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) Ss.15 & 14 All pending applications/ oppositions should be decided by the Tribunal simultaneously to avoid conflict of decisions and multiplicity of proceedings If the identical matters were decided in different sets at different times, the decisions were likely to affect adversely the decision of the other set Three applications, in the present case, having duly been ordered to be advertised, were discussed in the impugned of the Tribunal but had not been finally decided on merits Neither the of the Tribunal in question disclosed any legal justification for bypassing the earlier order advertising the said three applications nor any provision of law to that effect was shown Once an application had been ordered to be advertised the same could not be left in abeyance without going through the process of advertisement Judgment of the Tribunal, in circumstances, was set aside by the High Court and all applications and oppositions covered by the appeals in the case were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merit alongwith the three said applications High Court, however, declined to discuss the case or adjudicate the same and directed that the Tribunal would be at liberty to decide the matters afresh in accordance with law. Basra Soap, Factory v. Punjab Soap Factory PLD 1973 Kar. 279; Playboy Enterprise Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and another 1986 MLD 1312; Iqbal Ahmed v. The Registrar of Trade Marks; Karachi 1988 CLC 1052; Messrs Dynasel (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi PLD 2000 Kar. 298; Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks v. Messrs Lackson Company Tobacco Ltd. 1992 SCMR 2323; Nahan Foundry v. Messrs Seth Muhammad Rafique Zarati Foundry and others 1994 MLD 2401 and National Detergents Limited v. Nirma Chemicals Works and another 1992 MLD 2358 ref. JUDGMENT This judgment will dispose of the above appeals arising out of consolidated judgment passed on 26 3 1999 by the Registrar of the. Trade Marks Registry, Karachi. For the sake of brevity the parties namely Premier Tobacco Industries, Lakson Tobacco Company Limited, Universal Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and Registrar of Trade Marks Registry are…
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