1992 PLP 1902 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 10‑‑‑Registration of trade mark‑‑‑Registration of word "Woolco" as trade mark in respect of textiles and textile goods not included in other classes; bed and table covers all being goods included in class 24, was declined on ground that word "Woolco" represented a trifling variation of wool and was not per se distinctive and as such it offended against provisions of S. 6 (1) (c) of the Act‑‑‑Word "Woolco" sought to be registered as trade mark, was an invented word coined by applicants themselves‑‑‑Word though had a suggestive reference to English word "Wool", but same had no direct reference to quality of goods which it represented. Abdul Hameed for Appellant. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1992. The appellant has called in question the order passed by the learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 11‑11‑1990.

2. The appellants had earlier filed an Application No.94432 dated 13‑5‑1987 for registration of their newly‑coined word "Woolco" as a trade mark in class 24 in respect of textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers all being goods included in class

24. However, the learned Registrar found that the word Woolco' represented a trifling variation of wool, and therefore, the same was not per se distinctive and consequently, he declined to register the trade mark on the ground that it offended against the provisions of section 6 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act. Reliance appears to have been placed on the case of Sweetex reported in PLD 1973 Note 7, at page 15.

3. Mr. Abdul Hameed, learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to an earlier judgment of mine dated 28‑11‑1991 given in a similar case between the same parties namely, C.M. No. 47 of 1991. In this case, the appellants had sought the registration of the same trade mark in respect of lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid, buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles, artificial flowers etc. and also in respect of goods including clothing, hosiery and knitwear. The learned Assistant Registrar applying the same principles which was enunciated in the case of Sweetex declined to register the said trade mark. The two appeals filed by the appellants challenging the said order of the Assistant Registrar were, however, allowed and it was held that although in case of goods consisting of items of lace embroidery etc., the trade mark 'Woolco" had no reference to the quality or character of the goods but in case of goods consisting of hosiery, knitwear etc., although the trade mark "Woolco" had suggestive reference to the character of the goods but as the same was not direct, the trade mark could not be said to be offending against the provisions of section 6 (1) (d) of the Trade Marks Act.

4. It may be pointed out that the word "Woolco" is aid invented word coined by the appellants themselves. No doubt, it has a suggestive reference to the English word "Wool" but the word "Woolco" has no direct reference to the character of quality of the goods which it represents. The case of Sweetex in fact is not attracted to the facts of the present case.

5. In the result, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the learned Assistant Registrar, impugned in this appeal, is set aside and the Assistant Registrar is directed to take further action in the case in accordance with the Trade Marks Act by advertising the trade mark in the Trade Marks Journal. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./F‑184/K Appeal accepted.