H & B GENERAL TRADING COMPANY THROUGH DIRECTOR versus INTERNATIONAL MARKETING COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR
Sections 73, 80, 96 and 117 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 10, 11 and 20 (c) of the defendant claim to cancel the registration of the trademark and to invalidate and suspend its operation. The blurred mark and the defendant's place were registered at \ K \, but upon receipt of the plaintiff's legal notice at the place of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the petitioner ti to file a case against the \ P subse. An earlier case in relation to the same trademark is pending P \ P pending with the plaintiff's decision. The reason for the defendant's action against the defendant on the spot was partially arising, therefore, that the defendant should have been justified in filing his case against the defendant. At the Judge \ P, where proceedings in respect of the same trademark were already pending, the difference between the clauses of such two suit clauses is not an obstacle to holding the order under Section 10, CPC, which Due to which it is pending in the place and depends on it. The decision about the rightful owner of the trademark in it, no injunction can be granted in both suits. If the suit was decided in favor of the defendant, then the plaintiff in the K ff case in that case. Will serve as a judiciary again in the case. In both suits (ie, the question of owning the trademark), the parties were one and the defendant's previous case was pending before a competent court, which could provide relief in the subsequent case of the plaintiff. Section 10, CPC, any of the conditions set forth in the court may remain in the interest of justice, provided that the decision in a previously established case, Section 10, Section 11, under the CPC
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
