Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISE INC. versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS


Trademark Act 1940 Sections 55 and 56 Application for Trademark Registration Multiple applications on the same class and same trade mark are pending before the Registrar. All such applications are decided by the Registrar to avoid conflicts of judgment and complete and complete justice. The decision-making application had to be decided together. Defendants 'appellants' requests that they decide their applications at the same time dismiss the rest of the registrar's request and obtain a case remand, with which to place the same commercial and same class applications simultaneously. ?

1986 M L D 1312

[Karachi]

Before Saeeduzzoman Siddiqui, J

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISE INC.‑‑Appellants

Versus

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another Respondents

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 1979, decided on 22nd April, 1986.

Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)

‑‑‑Ss. 55 & 56‑‑Trade mark‑‑Application for registration‑‑More than one application on same class and same trade mark pending before Registrar‑‑All such applications were to be decided together to avoid conflict of decisions and to do full and complete justice Registrar deciding application of respondent while applications of appellants who requested him to decide their applications simultaneously remaining pending‑‑Order of Registrar disposing of application set aside and case remanded with direction to dispose of applications of same trade and same class simultaneously.

Chughtai Jamiluddin for Appellants.

S. Shaukat Ali for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1986.

JUDGMENT

This appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 is filed by Messrs Playboy Enterprises Inc. a foreign company incorporated under the laws of U.S.A., against the decision of Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 22‑7‑1977 (1 will hereafter refer the Trade Marks Act, 1940 as the Act only for the sake of convenience). By the impugned order the Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi, dismissed the opposition lodged by the appellant under section 8(a) of the Act and allowed registration of trade mark 'Playboy' with the device of a Rabbit's head in favour of respondent No.2 file under No. 66627 in class 25 after expiry of period of appeal.

2. The Registrar,‑ rejected the opposition of appellant and allowed registration of Trade Mark 'Playboy' with the device of a rabbit's head in favour of respondent No.1, on the ground that the appellant failed to establish that the above mark was ever used by them In Pakistan in relation to any goods under class 25, produced by them:". It was also found by the Tribunal that there was considerable evidence on record to show that respondent No.2 extensively used the Trade Mark 'Playboy' with device of a rabbit's head in relation to the goods produced and sold in Pakistan. The learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the Tribunal below failed to consider that the mark 'Playboy' with device of a rabbit's head is registered in favour of appellant in about 50 countries of the world and this fact alone was sufficient to refuse registration of the same mark in favour of respondent No. 1. It is also contended that the appellant was unreasonably denied opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal to establish use of the above mark in relation to goods produced by appellant and sold in local markets in Pakistan. It is lastly contended that the application of appellant filed for registration of the above Trade Mark in their favour in class 25 which was pending before the Registrar should have been considered and. decided simultaneously as by the present decision the pending application of appellant has been prejudged. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am ‑of the view that the present appeal can be disposed of6on the basis of last contention of appellant. It is quit clear from the order of the Tribunal that at the time he rejected the opposition of the appellant and allowed further proceedings for registration of Trade Mark No. 66627 in class 25 in favour of respondent No.2, the applications filed by the appellant bearing Nos. 68763 and 68764 for registration of the same trade mark in their favour was pending before the Registrar. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that it was for the appellant to have pressed before the Registrar for decision of their above pending applications simultaneously and in the absence of such a prayer by the appellant the Registrar was not bound to decide these applications simultaneously and as such the appellant cannot make any grievance in this regard. It is true t ha no specific prayer was made to the Registrar apparently by the appellant to decide their pending applications simultaneously but the fact that the two applications of the appellant for registration of the same mar in the same class in their favour was pending registration is specifically noted in the impunged order. In these circumstances in order to avoid any conflict of decision and to do full and complete justice between the parties the Registrar should have dealt with all the pending applications at a time as the decision of any one of them was likely to affect the other pending applications in the circumstances of the case.1 accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of Registrar and remand the case back to the Registrar with the direction that he should forthwith advertise Applications Nos. 68763 and 68764 filed by the appellant for registration of Trade Mark 'Playboy' with the device of a rabbit's head and after completion of all formalities all the pending applications in respect of the same trade mark in the same class be decided simultaneously. There will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
property advocates from Garh Maharaja lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.