Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 53 of 1983, decided on 29th October, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 16 & 76‑‑Notification No. S.R.O. 708(K)64 dated 17th September, 1964‑‑Notification No. S.R.O. 1225(1)76, dated 22nd December, 1976‑ Earlier notification banning the use of word "National" as part of trade mark, withdrawn by subsequent notification dated 22nd December, 1976‑‑Effeet‑‑Trade mark which included the word "National" registered‑‑Appeal by objector against registration of trade mark withdrawn on gaining knowledge of subsequent notification which had withdrawn ban on use of word National as part of trade mark.
Zafar Alam Khan for Appellant.
Salim Ghulam Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th October, 1986.
The appellant has challenged the decision of the Registrar of Trade Mark dated 17‑3‑1983, whereby the opposition filed by the appellant to the registration of a Trade Mark in favour of respondent No.2 which included the words. "National" as a dominant feature of mark under clause 34, was disallowed and the Trade Mark was accepted for registration. The only contention raised by the appellant in this) appeal is that the registration of the word "National" as a Trade Mark is not permissible under the law in view of the notification dated 25‑9‑1964 issued by the Federal Government specifically prohibitory registration of a Trade Mark which consisted of the word "National". The Tribunal below after hearing the parties took the view of the disclaimer made by respondent No.2 in respect of the use of the word "National and the fact that the invented word "Lakson" which is part of the Trade Mark stands registered in favour of respondent No.2 and that the 'mark' has been restricted to limited colour scheme and features, there was no substance in the opposition proceedings. The relevant notification of Federal Government relied by the appellant in support of the above contention appears at page 382 of the Gazette of Pakistan dated 25th September, 1964, as follows:‑
"Islamabad, the 17th September, 1964. S.R.O. 708 (K)/64.
In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 16 of the Trade Mark Act, 1940 (V of 1940), the Central Government is pleased to direct the Registrar of Trade Mark not to register (1) any trade mark consisting of or containing the word "NATIONAL", (2) any trade mark containing the crossed device of arrow and letter "P" denoting the property of Government, (3) , the letters C . S. P. denoting Civil Service Pakistan and (4) the letters P.S.I. W.P.I.D.C. and E.P.I.D.C. denoting Pakistan Standard Institution, West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, respectively, if applied for by any person or body other than these institutions."
The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in reply to the above contention of appellant urged that although such a notification was issued by the Federal Government prohibiting the registration of the word "National" as a part of trade mark in the year 1964 but by a subsequent Notification No.S.R.O. 1225(i)/76 dated 22nd December, 1976 F which is printed at page 2366 of Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary dated 24‑12‑1976, the earlier notification dated 17‑9‑1964 relied by the appellant was rescinded and as such after that date no such restriction to the registration of word "National" now exists. The relevant notification referred by the learned counsel for the respondent reads as follows:‑
"Islamabad, the 22nd December, 1976.
S . R . O . 1225 (1) / 76 . I n exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of section 16 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 (V of 1940) the Federal Government is pleased to rescind this Division's Notification NO.S.R.0.708(K)/64, dated the 17th December, 1964, and NO.S.R.0.442(1)/76 dated the 11th May, 1976."
The learned counsel for the appellant very candidly stated before me after going through the notification, dated 22‑12‑1976, that this notificatiorr was not within his knowledge and that in view of this t subsequent notification, he does not press his appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./5145/K Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer