1993 PLP 2203 (CLC)
FERRING A.B.‑Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2203 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Yar Khan, J |
| Parties | FERRING A.B.‑Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2203 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2203 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ahmed Yar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2203 (CLC) (FERRING A.B.‑Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Trade mark‑‑‑Registration of‑‑‑Registration of Trade Mark "DDAVP" was refused on the ground that applicant was unable to quote a single instance of a trade mark where word had "DD" in beginning‑‑‑Authority concluded that public was not accustomed to such word and would not be able to pronounce the same‑‑‑Applicant placed reliance on a Journal wherein Trade Mark "ZZAPPIT" and "ZZAPIT", having two letters in beginning were advertised‑‑‑No strong reason having been given by Authority for refusing registration of trade mark applied for, order of Authority refusing registration of Trade Mark "DDAVP" was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1992. Appellant is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the manufacturing of medicines. The appellant introduced a new drug for the treatment of diabetes insipidus, as such the appellant applied for registration of trade, mark of a distinctive word "DDAVP" in Class
5. The respondent rejected the application vide impugned order dated 15‑9‑1991 hence the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Abdul Hameed Iqbal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the perusal of the impugned order indicates that the application for registration has been refused on the ground that the appellant was unable to quote a single instance of a trade mark where the word had "DD" in the beginning. As such the respondent came to the conclusion that the public was not accustomed to such word and would not be able to pronounce the name, hence the registration was refused. Mr. Iqbal submitted that the relevant law does not contain any mandatory condition that the application for registration of trademark should contain only those words to which the public is accustomed. On the other hand, Mr. Iqbal contended that the uncommon words would be retained in the memory of the public who could easily distinguish uncommon trade mark from the trade marks for which common words are used. Mr. Iqbal also placed reliance on Supreme Court (sic) Journal July 1992, wherein the following trademarks have been advertised under section L5/I of the Trade Marks Act. It contains words "ZZAPPIT", "ZZAPPIT at serial No.110497 and 110498, respectively. No one appeared for the respondent. After considering the submissions of Mr. Iqbal, I am of the view that no strong reason has been given in the impugned order for refusing the registration of the trademark. As such the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 15‑9‑1991, is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to proceed with the registration of word "DDAVP" as a trade mark under Application No.98070 in Class 5 by accepting and advertising the application of appellant in the Trade Marks Journal. The parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./F‑216/K Appeal allowed.