Law: Registered LayoutDesigns of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000

Section: 2,10,25

Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)---Ss. 2, 10 & 25-Application for cancellation of registered design---Applicant had filed application for cancellation of design acquired by respondent in respect of design of three wheeled vehicle---Claim of applicant was that he, by compensating respondent, had acquired the exclusive right in design in question and the respondent had no more right in that respect---Respondent had claimed proprietorship and exclusive right in said design on the ground that he had worked for said design---Parties had not correctly set forth the true facts and both parties were trying to take advantage of verbal understanding between them and were not fair to each other---Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 did not provide any procedure for the High Court to follow in hearing application under S.10 of the Ordinance though its S.25 provided for evidence before Registrar---In absence of any prescribed procedure, the High Court could adopt any procedure---Unless specifically prohibited, the court was empowered to frame issues and could take evidence to resolve the dispute once for all---In the present case, due to absence of any agreement in writing between the parties, it was difficult to give any findings on the basis of affidavit and counter-affidavit of the parties---Best course available was to frame the issues and to direct the parties to prove their respective contentions by way of evidence-Parties were directed by High Court to file their respective claims and after framing of issues, the parties would be at liberty to produce evidence in support of their claims. Ward Lock and Company Limited v. Long (1906) 2 Ch. D. 550; Lawarence and Buller Limited v. Aflalo and Cook 1904 Appeal Cases 17; Lamb v. Evans (1993) 1 Ch 218; Muhammad Mohsin Butt v. Muhammad Inayat Butt 2005 CLD 747; Province of West Pakistan v. Mahboob Ali PLD 1976 SC 483; The Attorney General and Ephraim Hutchings (Relator) v. The Directors and The Co. of The Great Eastern Railway (1880) 5 HL 473; Ashbay Railway Company v. Riche (1860) 8 HLC 721; Fida Ali Yousuf Ali v. Graxalt PLD 1967 Kar. 637; Commissioner for Income _Tax (Central) Karachi v. Messrs Habib Insurance…

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