P L D 1971 Karachi 579 (PLP)
TAE PARKER PEN COMPANY‑ — Appellant Versus ERO‑FULLHALTER FABRIK LUDWIG — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1971 Karachi 579 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J |
| Parties | TAE PARKER PEN COMPANY‑ — Appellant Versus ERO‑FULLHALTER FABRIK LUDWIG — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1971 Karachi 579 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1971 Karachi 579 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1971 Karachi 579 (PLP) (TAE PARKER PEN COMPANY‑ — Appellant Versus ERO‑FULLHALTER FABRIK LUDWIG — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- I. Mahmood for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 8 & 10‑--Phonetic expression of device‑--Owner of trade mark of device in shape of arrow object ing to registration of word "ERO" in respect of goods of same class on ground of both having phonetic similarity‑--Protection to device, held, extend to description of that device in language only when consumers ask for and think of goods in terms of its linguistic description‑--Connection in practices or mind of consumer between device and its phonetic expression not established‑--Protection granted to a device cannot be extended to its phonetic expression in circumstances of case. The extension of protection from a device to the description of that device in language depends upon whether the consumers ask for and think of the goods on which the device appears in terms of linguistic description or not. If the word which describes the registered device has become the token of reference amongst the consumers for purposes of asking for and buying the goods, then the protection of the device should ordinarily extend to the linguistic description also. From this point of view there may be cases in which the protection of a registered device may extend to its phonetic expression and also cases in which it may not so extend.
Judgment & Decree
Cap Barrel Colours Pen Pencil Ball Point Junior (Arrow) Plastic R. G. Trim Black, Green, D. Blue. Red, Gray, L Blue. 17/5 14/4 9/11 Junior(Arrow) Plastic Chrome Black, D. Blue, Red, Green, Gray, L. Blue 14/6 11/5 7/11 Counsel says that on the basis of the above two entries Parker pens, pencils and ball pens are sold with reference to the word "ARROW". This inference of counsel from "A‑l" is not founded on any evidence relating to how the consumers refer to or think of the goods. A‑1 is only one page of an export list which was evidently intended for the use of wholesale dealers. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude from the page how the subject‑matter was introduced as a whole by the exporter even to the wholesales. It is obvious that it is not the wholesalers who are likely to be confused by superficial similarities. It is the consumer who is ordinarily not well informed and may be misled. The necessary evidence has not been brought on record and an advantage appears to have been sought on behalf or the appellant by advancing the legal argument that protection granted to a device should extend to the phonetic expression of that device. This proposition as mentioned above is too widely stated and the appellant cannot take advantage of it because the required evidence to establish a connection in the practices or mind of the consumer between the device and its phonetic expression has not been produced. In view of the above discussion, I agree with the conclusion at which the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks has arrived and find no reason for taking a different view. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.