| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1881 2009 SLD 1881 2009 CLD 1005 |
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.108 of 2000, decision dated: 30-03-2009.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Rizwan Niaz for Appellant. Muhammad Siddique Qureshi for
Respondent.
R.F.A. No.108 of 2000, decision dated: 30-03-2009.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Rizwan Niaz for Appellant. Muhammad Siddique Qureshi for
Respondent.
Messrs NATIONAL TOOLS INDUSTRIES (REGD.) through Managing Partner
VS
. Messrs AZHAR ENTERPRISES through Proprietor
Law:
Section:
(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)------S.2---Registration of trade mark---Terms "likely to deceive" and "cause confusion"---Applicability---Infringement of trade mark---Term "likely to deceive" is wide enough to negate that absolute proof is needed to make out a case of infringement of trademark---Plaintiff can establish case of infringement of trade mark, by providing that trade mark has caused confusion or it resembles so nearly with registered trademark that there is likelihood of its deception, without calling witness in witness box, who was so deceived. Messrs Burney's Industrial and Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Rehman Match Works PLD 1983 Kar. 357 and Lever v. Goodwin (1887) 36 Ch. D. 1 rel. (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--- ----Ss.21, 43 & 74-Infringement of trade mark---Recovery of damages---Similarity in design and colour scheme---Plaintiff alleged that trade mark being used by defendant was similar to his mark and the same was causing deception in the minds of plaintiff's buyers---Validity---Defendant. dishonestly followed same pattern and used same colour scheme, opting to make his label identical and similar to that of plaintiff; though both labels were worded different---Label of plaintiff comprised of word "improved" while defendant's label carried word "two camels"-Addresses mentioned in both labels were different but lower portions of both labels were similarly worded---Both labels were comprised of three parts and their colour scheming and size created element of deception---Deception became more conspicuous when label was affixed by defendant at handle of shovel, which was round in shape---If infringing label was fixed at top of handle one of the two camels would become invisible and had given impression of one camel instead of two camels--Unwary purchaser in such case was whether a farmer or a labourer or an illiterate person, as the tool was meant for that class of users, could not distinguish the label by English words used thereon---Such aspect could not be ignored that illiterate purchasers normally purchase product by device or getup Claim of plaintiff for damages was permissible only when damages claimed were asserted in suit under…
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