Law: Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)

Section: 21

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2

(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)---S. 21 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Suit for infringement of trade mark Temporary injunction, grant of Considerations Court, after comparing both the trade marks/labels had to make an assessment, whether the same were more or less similar If answer to such an exercise was in positive, then the earlier trade mark would be given due acknowledgment and acceptance, and consequently the latter trade mark would be restrained. Rexona Proprietary Ltd. v. Majid Soap Works PLD 1956 Sindh 1; Insaf Soap Factory v. Lever Brothers Port Sunlight Ltd. PLD 1959 Lah.381; Telephone Soap v. Messrs Lever Brothers 1994 CLC 2135 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1974 Kar.136 ref. (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) S. 21 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 Suit for infringement of trade mark Temporary injunction Plaintiff in year 1990 acquired trade mark titled "Tepal Tea Mezban Super Dust" in respect of its products ¬Defendant thereafter adopted trade mark titled "Merjan Premier Dust" Plaintiffs claim was that defendant's trade mark had a reasonable duplication of plaintiff s trade mark, which would deceive common man resulting in losses and damages to plaintiff, thus, sought temporary injunction Held: Defendant's label had the same colour, get up and design as that of the plaintiff Only dissimilarity between the two appeared to be in the words "Mezban" and "Merjan", which was not a total dissimilarity, but a partial one Defendant's label prima facie was deceptively similar to that of plaintiff; which could cause common man to mistake the defendant's tea to that of the plaintiff, thus, resulting in immense losses to plaintiff; who had invested huge amounts on promotion and advertisement of its brand of tea under the name of "Mezban Super Dust" Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction Application for temporary injunction was allowed in circumstances. Ferozeuddin v. Muhammad Shaft PLD 1975 Kar.486; Abdul Wahid v. Haji Abdul Rahim PLD 1973 SC 108; Messrs Gorey International v. Colgate Palmolive (Pvt.) Ltd. 2000 MLD 8; Pakistan Tobacco Co.…

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