Find a Lawyer

HAMDARD LABORATORIES (WAQF) PAKISTAN versus MUHAMMAD FAHIM

Plaintiff's argument for violation of sections 21, 43, and 74 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXX, RR 1 and 2, for a permanent injunction, was the plaintiff's argument that he was a trademark of the ROOH AFZA label. Was marketing under. But the defendant had started producing, packing and marketing a syrup under the trademark Route e-Smart Label, and the two signs were identical, vague and deceptively visually as well as in accordance with the interim injunction. Applying for the Welderty injection was a form of equality, relief was to be given in the aid of equality and justice, but only in the case where one person established all three components in his favor. There was no sound match between both the sorbet spirit and the "spirit e samar" \ sign of the register giving its owner a special right to use the trademark and the entry was a first proof of its authenticity against such right. Violation may not be allowed in the field. Before preventing anyone from continuing in a lawful business or business, it is important to have a discount on their rights so it cannot be allowed to maintain a balance between the two products / brands so that a common user can Don't be different The intention of the purchase or what was offered to them did not result in any confusion of the two products as not only the color scheme but the calligraphy and the style of it was quite different. There was a photograph / photograph of different fruits. It is not enough for the plaintiff's plea to believe that the defendant's product, "Labour's Spirit Enhancement", was labeled "sorbet spirit." ent fruits is not sufficient to believe the plea of the plaintiff that label of the defendant"s product "Rooh-e-Samar" shall cause "confusion" or "deception" to its customers of "Sharbat Rooh Afza". The colour scheme(s) of these two are entirely different with considerable distinction to an ordinary eye; the calligraphy is also differently posed and even picture of fruits is different from that of "Sharbat Rooh Afza". 15. In view of above examination I am not of the view that label of the product of the defendant (Rooh-e-Samar) is being presented/labeled or marketed in a manner or fashion that it could result in causing a "deception" or "confusion" to the customer of the plaintiff whose brand "Sharbat Rooh Afza" is well renowned and very much known to its customers, therefore, no case of "confusion" or "deception" is appearing to me. Accordingly, I am not inclined to sail with the view of the plaintiff but conclude that plaintiff has no prima facie case in its favour so as to deprive the defendant from doing/continuing the lawful business or trade. Therefore, application for injunction is hereby dismissed. In consequence whereof the C.M.A. No.11282 of 2014 stands dismissed being infructuous. 16. While parting, the Registrar is directed to decide the application of the defendant for registration of Trade mark without being influenced with any of the observations made hereinabove. AG/H-28/Sindh Order accordingly.