Find a Lawyer

SH. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ versus STATE

Sections 498 were amended (XLV of 1860), Sections 468, 471, 482, 483 and 486 of the Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Sections 66 and 67 of pre-arrest bail, were requested to confirm the accused. That they applied for registration of their trademark in Form TM46, which is pending with the Authority. That he was legally producing ding dong bubble gum, while the complainant's company product was Hilal Ding dong bubble. That the image printed on his wrapper was completely different from the one printed by the complainant's company, and his formula for bubble gum was also materially different from that of the complainant's company and that of preventing unsafe people. Was a device that advised the complainant to be a company lawyer, who said that in view of the poor and critical health of the accused, who is a chronic heart patient, the accused opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail. ; In view of the Complainant Company Attorney / General Attorney's statement, the accused's interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed \ r \ n \ r \ n best law firm from Kandhkot lawyer