2025 PLP 50 (CLD)
ABDUL WASIM — Appellant Versus Messrs NTN CORPORATION and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 50 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL WASIM — Appellant Versus Messrs NTN CORPORATION and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), (b) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 50 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), (b) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 50 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 50 (CLD) (ABDUL WASIM — Appellant Versus Messrs NTN CORPORATION and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qamaruddin for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 86 & 40
Well known trade mark, protection of
Effect
Appellant (engaged in business of ball bearing and taper roller) challenged the decision of the Registrar of the Trade Marks whereby appellant's Trade Mark (NBN) was refused on the basis that Trade Mark (NTN) of the respondent was well-known
Record (impugned judgment and copies of the registration certificates of respondent) reflected that Trade Mark of the respondent (NTN) was not only registered in Pakistan but many other countries of the world
Hence, Trade Mark of the respondent (NTN) was protected under S.86 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, as a well-known Trade Mark
Letters NBN adopted by the appellant were clearly disentitled from protection because of resemblance with the Trade Mark NTN, which was Trade Mark of the respondent
Appellant was to be restrained from adopting or using the said NBN Trade Mark
Law of Trade Mark is founded on the fundamental principle of protection of consumers by restricting use of similar, identical or confusingly Trade Mark by rival entities
There was no doubt that the Trade Mark NBN was only adopted by the appellant after its proprietor considered the prior use and goodwill of the Respondent' Trade Mark NTN which was in existence for many years, not only in Pakistan but around the globe in relation to ball bearing and taper roller
No illegality or apparent error had been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Registrar of the Trade Marks
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Ss. 86 & 40
Tests
Appellant (engaged in business of ball bearing and taper roller) challenged the decision of the Registrar of the Trade Marks whereby appellant's Trade Mark (NBN) was refused on the basis that Trade Mark (NTN) of the respondent was well-known
If a mark passes the "Moron in a Hurry", "Class Trinity" or "LAPP" tests, it escapes out of the legal protection umbrellaed by Trade Mark or common law, which was the case-at-hand, as NBN was not entitled to protection in the presence of NTN Trade Mark
No illegality or apparent error had been noticed in the impugned order passed by the Registrar of the Trade Marks
Appeal was dismissed , in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J.
On 12.01.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant was given unconditional permission to appear on the next date of hearing to argue the case. Today a brief is held on his behalf. This matter was heard at some length on the last date and counsel took time, hence the following order:- The Appellant has challenged the decision of Registrar of the Trade Marks where appellant's Trade Mark NBN was refused on the basis of well-known Trade Mark NTN. Perusal of the Judgment and the accompanying material reflects that NTN is not only registered in Pakistan but many other countries of the world hence protected under Section 86 of the Trade Mark Ordinance 2001 as a well-known Trade Mark. The letter's NBN adopted by the Appellant are clearly disentitled to protection being resembling with the Trade Mark NTN, The impugned decision has relied on the leading case laws of CEC v. GEC, 1963 RPC-1, BEI v. BEL, 1982 PTC-377, ETC v. ATE, 1982 PTC 119 as well as AEC v. GEC, AIR-1974. Seemingly, the Appellants were also restrained by earlier Court cases to not to adopt or use the said NBN Trade Mark. The law of Trade Mark is founded on the fundamental principle of protection of consumers by restricting use of similar, identical or confusingly Trade Mark by rival entities. There is no doubt that the Trade Mark NBN was only adopted by the Appellant after its proprietor having considered the prior use and goodwill of the Trade Mark NTN which was in existence for many years, not only in Pakistan but around the globe in relations to Ball Bearing and Taper Roller which is evident from the copies of the registration certificates. This Court in the case of Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan v. Muhammad Fahim (2016 CLD 2144) has held that if a mark passes the "Moran in a Hurry", "Class Trinity " or "LAPP" tests, it escapes out of the legal protection umbrellaed by Trade Mark or Common Law, which is the case at hand, as NBN is not entitled to protection in the presence of NTN Trade Mark. In these circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed as no illegality or apparent error is found in the impugned order. MQ/A-45/Sindh Appeals dismissed.