1986 PLP 1316 (MLD)
TAJ INDUSTRIES — Appellant. Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1316 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | TAJ INDUSTRIES — Appellant. Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1316 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1316 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1316 (MLD) (TAJ INDUSTRIES — Appellant. Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shaukat Ali for Appellant.
- Khalil Kizilbash for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 55 & 56--Registration of trade mark--No opposition forthcoming from respondent to registration of appellants' trade mark--Registrar directing certain modifications to bring trade mark in accord with earlier registered trade mark of appellants--Such modifications we're not justified and since no opposition was made by respondent, Registrar was directed to proceed with registration of trade mark of appellant without modification.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 55 & 56‑‑Registration of trade mark‑‑No opposition forthcoming from respondent to registration of appellants' trade mark‑‑Registrar directing certain modifications to bring trade mark in accord with earlier registered trade mark of appellants‑‑Such modifications we're not justified and since no opposition was made by respondent, Registrar was directed to proceed with registration of trade mark of appellant without modification. Syed Shaukat Ali for Appellant. Khalil Kizilbash for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 24th April, 1986. Mr. Khalil Kizilbash states that his client Muhammad Rafiq Vohra who was the sole proprietor of Olympia Rubber Industries, has sold the concern to one Muhammad Muslim, whose attorney Iftikharuddin is present in Court. The original power‑of‑attorney has been produced and a photostat copy thereof has been placed on record. The attorney of the purchaser states that he has no objection if the appeal of the appellant is allowed, and the mark of the appellant, which he had applied for registration under No: 62194 is registered. I have gone through the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks,1 dated 23‑8‑1979, in this case, and I find that, in conclusion the Registrar himself reached the conclusion that no valid opposition was raised to the registration of the mark of the appellant, bearing No. 62199. The Registrar was, however, of the view that modification should be made in the mark applied for registration to bring it in accord with an earlier registered mark of the appellant, bearing No. 59183. This condition apparently was not justified, as there was no opposition to the registration of the mark of the appellant under No. 62199. However, it is not necessary now to decide this question on merit, as the respondent has now sold his concern to another person, and the said purchaser has appeared in Court through his attorney and made statement that he has no objection if the appellant's mark No. 62199 is registered, as it is. In view of this admission made by the respondent, I allow this appeal, and direct the Registrar to proceed for registration of the mark of the appellant, bearing, No. 62199, in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to costs M.Y.H Appeal allowed.