VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) INC. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY versus MEMON PHARMACEUTICAL
Sections 2 (XXV), 8 (a), 14, 17, 18, 22, 28, 33 and 39 registered trademarks, violation of a permanent injunction, for the plaintiff to own the registered trademark \ Maltofer of The counterfeit trademark in connection with the preparation of the Claim shall not be registered under AL Maltosunder's trademark or any part thereof in connection with the defendant's goods or services, if he causes fraud and / or confusion. If the owner of the registered trademark does not have the exclusive status of the owner of the registered trademark, it is OK and the violation was not valid under the law. The defeat cannot be allowed, which was to replace the first plaintiff's trademark \ Maltos plain with the plaintiff's letters \ FER of the plaintiffs entering the field. Phonetically, visually, structurally, fraudulent and ambiguous and similar and similar imitations are registered trademarks of Al Sutafar T F registered registered with the trade mark AL Mtoffer T F registered. Used trademarks / maltose uses with the idea that the best quality of goods available in the market under the trademark under maltafar Hinn fraud in the sale of low quality as the equipment. There was nothing available on record by the defendant in denying the plaintiff's evidence. Under the law, no one could use any trademark and / or reputation / reputation of the plaintiff to defraud and harm the employer's goodwill. Defendant violates his registered trademark with the claimant
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
