1993 PLP 2201 (CLC)
GRINNELL CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2201 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Yar Khan, J |
| Parties | GRINNELL CORPORATION‑‑‑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 2201 (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 2201 (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 2201 (CLC) (GRINNELL CORPORATION‑‑‑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
- M/s. Irfan S. Irfan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Trade mark‑‑‑Registration of‑‑‑Registration of Trade Mark 'GRINNELL' applied for in respect of "CHEMICALS AND ADHESIVES" was refused to applicant on ground that word "GRINNELL" conflicted phonetically with an earlier registered trade mark containing word "GRIND WELL"‑‑Authority observed that sounds of consonants "D" and "W in registered Trade Mark `GRIND WELL' were bound to be sturred rendering it phonetically similar to subject mark "GRINNELL"‑‑‑Neither phonetic nor industrywise similarity existed between two trade marks namely "GRIND WELL" and `GRINNELL' as such Authority was not justified in refusing registration of trade mark applied for.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th November, 1992. The appellant had applied to the respondent for registration of trade mark containing the word 'GRINNELL in Class 1 in respect of "CHEMICALS AND ADHESIVES" used in the Industry of Fire extinguisher. The respondent by his order dated 28‑9‑1991, refused to register the aforesaid trade mark on the ground that the word "GRINNELL" conflicted phonetically with an earlier registered trade mark containing the word "GRIND WELL". It was observed by the respondent that the sounds of consonants "D" and "W" in the registered Trade Mark "GRIND WELL" are bound to be slurred rendering it phonetically similar to the subject mark "GRINNELL". Mr. Irfan learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the respondent wrongly observed that the sounds of consonants "D" and "W" in the registered Trade Mark "GRIND WELL" were bound to be slurred, as firstly letters "D" and "W" of the. English language have emphatic sounds and are generally used as "ENDINGS" of words, hence there are not likely to be slurred in the same manner as soft sounding alphabets like "A", "E", "I", "O" and "W". Mr. Irfan further submitted that "GRIND WELL" is not a word like "TOUGH" "BOROUGH" etc., where some letters may be silent and not slurred. Mr. Irfan pointed out that the Trade Mark "GRIND WELL" is registered in respect of "CERAMIC GLAZING" whereas the applied Trade Mark "GRINNELL" pertains to the Industry producing fire extinguishing Chemicals etc. Mr. Irfan submitted that neither there is phonetic similarity between the two trade marks, nor they pertain to the same Industry, hence there was no justification for refusal of the registration of the trade mark applied for by the appellant. None appeared for the‑ respondent. After going through the submissions of Mr. Irfan, I am of the view that neither phonetic nor Industrywise similarity exists between the two trade marks namely "GRIND WELL" and "GRINNELL" as such there was no justification for the respondent to refuse the registration of the trade mark applied for by the appellant. Accordingly present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28‑9‑1991 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to proceed with the registration of appellant's application for registration of word "GRINNELL" as a trade mark under No‑99585 in Class 1 by accepting and advertising the said application of appellant in the Trade Marks Journal. Parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G‑341/K Appeal allowed.