1990 PLP 561 (SCMR)
THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus KHAWAR and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 561 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus KHAWAR and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 561 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 561 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 561 (SCMR) (THE WELLCOME FOUNDATION LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus KHAWAR and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawwad S. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th May,1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27‑2‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in FA.Os. No. 26 and 27/89, respectively). ‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Trade mark‑‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that trade names "Septrim" and "Septrex" adopted by respondents in respect of drug "Septran" were phonetically so similar that an average man was likely to confuse the goods of petitioner with those of the respondents and Trial Court as well as High Court erred in refusing the interim relief sought by the petitioner‑‑‑Respondents in the meanwhile were restrained from manufacturing or marketing the drug in question and Trial Court was not prevented from proceeding with the trial as directed by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Jawwad S. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th May,1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in these two petitions for special leave to appeal is a pharmaceutical firm, incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom. Amongst others, it manufactures and markets cotrimoxazon, and anti‑bacterial drug, under the trade name "Septran". The aid trade name has been registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
2. In 1985, the Ideal Pharmacy, respondent No.2 in C.P. No.415, started manufacturing and marketing the same drug under the trade name "Septrim". Similarly, in 1987, the Pharmacare, respondent No.2 in C.P. No. 414, began manufacturing and marketing it under the trade name "Septrex". Treating the manufacture and marketing of the same drug under closely resembling trade names as a breach '* of its right, the petitioner brought two suits seeking, inter alia, injunctions to restrain the respondents in the two petitions from preparing and selling the said drug under the trade names adopted by them. It also sought temporary injunctions pendente lite to the same effect. The prayers for temporary injunction were denied by the trial Court and its appeals before the High Court also failed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of these petitions it is contended that the trade names adopted by the respondents in respect of the drug in question are phonetically so similar to that under which the petitioner markets the same drug that an average man is likely to confuse the goods of the petitioner with those of the respondents. 1n the circumstances, the trial Court as well as the High Court erred in refusing the interim relief sought by the petitioner.
4. The contention raised in support of these petitions needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000 in each case. The appeals may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents; if any. In the meanwhile the respondents are restrained from manufacturing or marketing the drug m question under the names Septrex and Septrim. The pendency of the appeals should not prevent the trial Court from proceeding with the trials as directed by the High Court. M.A.K./W‑65/S Leave granted.