Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
First Appeal from Original Order No.93 of 1980, decided on 18th February, 1987.
---Ss.10 & 76--Trade marks--Trade marks of both parties distinct and different and no likelihood existing for any confusion or deception--Both parties, held, could use their respective trade marks and get them registered--Order of Registrar, Trade Marks, rejecting application of appellant for registration set aside and Registrar directed to register trade mark of appellant.
Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.
Chaudhry A.Waheed Saleem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987.
The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated the 9th January, 1980, rejecting the application of the appellant for registration of its mark, whose prominent word 'SARTAJ' appeared both in English and Urdu language, as well as its opposition to the respondent's application for the registration of its Trade Mark containing the word 'SARTAJ' in English language and consequently allowing the respondent to proceed with the registration, may be shortly stated. Sartaj Agricultural Industries, Faisalabad, appellant, and Sartaj Industries, Faisalabad, respondent, are registered firms. The appellant's partners are cousins of the respondent's partners. One Taj Din, the common ancestor of the partners of the two firms, started in 1906 the business of manufacturing agricultural implements which is now being conducted by these firms. However, after the death of Taj Din a rift arose between the various partners and separate organization case of concurrent use of the word 'SARTAJ' by the parties in view of their old family business. As the respective marks of the parties are distinct and different and there is no likelihood of any confusion or deception it is eminently fit case in which both the parties should be allowed to use their marks and get them registered. The appeal is accepted, the order of the Registrar in so far as it rejected the appellant's application to get its mark registered is set aside. The mark of the appellant will be registered. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./S-99/L Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer