1989 PLP 983 (MLD)
St. PAUL's TOBACCO COMPANY (CITY OF LONDON) INC. LIMITED,‑‑Appellant Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 983 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | St. PAUL's TOBACCO COMPANY (CITY OF LONDON) INC. LIMITED,‑‑Appellant Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 983 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 983 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 983 (MLD) (St. PAUL's TOBACCO COMPANY (CITY OF LONDON) INC. LIMITED,‑‑Appellant Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Shaukat Ali for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent (absent).
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.6(1)(d)‑‑Registration of trade mark‑‑Geographical name prohibited for registration is one relating to Pakistan‑‑Objection of Registrar refusing to register "Hyde Park" as trade mark wits not in accordance with law "Hyde Park being not a place which is populated or having a commercial value so as to bring it within prohibitory clause. M/s. Wurttembergische Parfumerie v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1986 Kar. 371; and Hochest Aktiengesell Chaft v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in Civil Appeals Nos. K‑37 and K‑38 of 1979 dated 22 9‑1981 ref.
Judgment & Decree
M/s. Wurttembergische Parfumerie v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1986 Kar. 371; and Hochest Aktiengesell Chaft v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in Civil Appeals Nos. K‑37 and K‑38 of 1979 dated 22 9‑1981 ref. Syed Shaukat Ali for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent (absent). Date of hearing: 27th November, 1986. This Appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act is filed by the appellant against the decision of the Registrar dated 20th December, 1984, whereby he refused to register the trade mark "Hyde Park" applied for registration by the appellant under No.77925 in respect of tobacco products under clause
34. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the case of I larrods Limited reported in 52 P.P.C. 65 in which the mark 'Hyde Park' in relation to cigarettes was allowed registration under Part B of the English Act. In addition to it learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the case of M/s. Wurttembergische Parfumerie v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1986 Kar. 371 decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court wherein registration of trade mark "Lady Manhattan" which was refused by the Registrar on the ground that Manhattan is a name of a village and a place and as such not liable to registration in view of provisions of section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act was allowed relying on the case of Hochest Aktiengesell Schaft v. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal Nos.K‑37 and K‑38 of 1979 dated 22‑9‑1981. In both the above‑cited cases it has been held that the geographical name which is prohibited for registration under section 6(1)(d) should be one relating to Pakistan. I am bound A by the decision given by the Supreme Court in the above case in Appeals No.K‑37 and K‑38 of 1979 and, therefore, I hold that the objection of the Registrar refusing to register `Hyde Park' as a trade mark was not in accordance with law. It may also be mentioned here that in addition to the above consideration the learned counsel also rightly pointed out that 'Hyde Park' is not a place which is populated or which has any population or commercial value so as to bring it within the definition of a geographical name as contemplated under the Act. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. The Registrar is directed to proceed with the application for registration of the appellant in accordance with law. 'There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑319/K Appeal allowed.