Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 394 2005 SLD 394 2005 CLD 1414
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.241 of 1998, heard on 17-01-2005
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Hassan Irfan Khan for Appellants. Syed All Zafar for
Respondent No. 1. Mian Muhammad Khalid for
Respondent No. 2.

ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL B.V. THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER

VS

PRIMA SPORTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE/MANAGER AND ANOTHER

Law: Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)

Section: 21

Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)---Ss. 21 &. 25---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for infringement of trade mark---Application for temporary injunction---Trial Court as interim relief restrained export of disputed goods---Trial Court thereafter firstly rejected plaint and then such application---Validity---high Court with consent of both parties set aside impugned /decree and remanded case to Trial Court for its fresh decision with observations that injunctive order passed in appeal would remain operative for a period of one month in the interest of justice. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present: first appeal proceeds against judgment dated 3-7-1998 and decree dated 6-7-1998, whereby the learned District Judge rejected the plaint in appellant's suit for grant of permanent injunction, and order dated 6-7-1998, through which application for the grant of temporary injunction, filed by the appellants in the aforesaid suit, was dismissed. 2. Precisely stated the facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellants filed the suit for the grant of permanent injunction and damages, in the Court of learned District Judge, alleging violation and infringement, by the respondent No.1, to their proprietary trade marks etc., together with an application for the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Respondent No.1 resisted the suit as well as the aforenoted application through filing the written statement and reply to the said application. Ultimately the learned District Judge dismissed the said application, vide detailed order dated 6-7-1998 and also rejected the plaint vide judgment dated 3-7-1998 and decree dated 6-7-1998, hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the impugned order dated 6-7-1998 and judgment dated 3-7-1998, has contended that it is beyond human's comprehension that firstly the appellant's plaint was rejected on 3-7-1998 and thereafter the application for the grant of interim relief was dismissed on 6-7-1998. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in fact both the order/ judgment were passed…
🔒
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