1983 PLP 1043 (SCMR)
SHEIKH AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MESSRS UNILEVER LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1043 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHEIKH AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MESSRS UNILEVER LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1043 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1043 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1043 (SCMR) (SHEIKH AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MESSRS UNILEVER LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocates on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nizam Ahmad. Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1983.
- Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocates on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nizam Ahmad. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-4-1982 of the Sind High Court at Karachi in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--Trade mark--Parties reaching agreement to settle their dispute during pendency of petition for leave to appeal in Supreme Court--Parties praying that Supreme Court may record agreement and pass appropriate order giving effect to same-Supreme Court while converting petition into appeal issued directions to Registrar of Trade Marks accordingly-Appeal allowed in terms of directions and order passed by High Court and Registrar of Trade Marks, set aside.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 20‑4‑1982 of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, whereby the appeal (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 1983, directed against the order dated 5‑1‑1978, passed by the Deputy Registrar Trade Marks, who had rejected the petitioner's application for the registration mark (Application No. 57686, dated 15‑8‑1972) in view of the respondent Trade Mark opposition No. 26 ‑ 1974 in respect of a pharmaceutical product in Class V.
2. During the pendency of this petition in this Court the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have reached an agreement to settle their dispute as follows :‑ (a) The trade mark in Application No. 57686, in Class V, dated 15th August, 1978 may be used by the petitioner and may be registered in the name of the petitioner but only in respect of the following goods namely :‑ "Medicines used in Homoeopathy but excluding pharmaceutical products used in Allopathy or other systems of medicine. None of the aforesaid goods being glycerine, containing or made with glycerine or goods of the same description as glycerine." (b) The petitioner shall not use or seek registration of the said trade mark in Application No. 57686 or any similar mark in respect of any other goods.
3. In view of this settlement, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have prayed that this Court may record, the same and pass an appropriate order giving effect to it.
4. Accordingly, this petition is converted into an appear and the Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to register the trade mark in Application No. 5768 for the following goods namely :‑ "Medicines used in Homoeopathy but excluding pharmaceutical products used in Allopathy or other systems of medicine. None of the aforesaid goods being glycerine, containing or made with glycerine or goods of the same description as glycerine."
5. The result is that the order of the Registrar of the Trade Marks, dated 5th March, 1978, in Trade Mark Opposition No. 26 of 1974 and the order of the High Court of Sind, dated 20th April, 1982 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 1978, whereby the petitioner's Application No. 57686 was rejected in toto are set aside and the appeal allowed in ‑ terms of the direction contained in para. 4 above.
6. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. M. Z. M. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.