Law: Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)

Section: 21, 22, 25 & 26

Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--Ss. 21, 22, 25 & 26---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Dispute as to trade mark--Application for seeking restraining orders against defendants---Applicant had contended that it had adopted and was using the trade mark on its goods, which mark had acquired substantial good-will within and outside Pakistan---Case of applicant was that defendants had adopted identical and confusingly similar mark which was causing confusion and deception amongst customers of applicant particularly and in public generally---Claim of defendants was that they had adopted the Trade Mark and were operating the same before applicant entered the field---Defendants had claimed that even applicant had been dealing with them since 2002, but no objection had been ever raised by applicant in that respect---Defendants had alleged that applicant had copied trade mark in question and managed to obtain its registration by misrepresentation---Applicant did not dispute that defendants had adopted the trade mark in question prior to applicant---Applicant acquired whatever right in the trade mark in question, was subject to limitation contained in S.21 Trade Marks Act, 1940 and it could not be argued that since applicant had filed suit when Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 was in the field, it was entitled to adopt the trade mark in question---Fact remained that rights acquired by the parties were under the predecessor Trade Marks Act, 1940 and such rights would continue to be governed under successor Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001---In absence of any error impugned order could not be interfered with. 1987 9MCR 1090; AIR 1980 Dehli 254; National Electric Fans Manufacturers v. S. Muhammad Din and Son's Ltd. 1980 SCMR 97; General Biscuit v. English Biscuit Manufacturer (Pvt.) Ltd. 2004 CLD 680 and Abdul Wasim v. Haico and others 2002 CLD 623 rel.JUDGMENT MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Appellant have impugned order dated 11-5-2006 whereby the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C; P.C. filed in Suit No.351 of 2003, seeking restraining orders against the defendant from the use of Trade Mark 'Al-Karam', was dismissed by the learned Single…