2016 PLP 1279 (CLD)
FC FRI-CHICKS — Petitioner Versus AKHTER MEHMOOD — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1279 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FC FRI-CHICKS — Petitioner Versus AKHTER MEHMOOD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1279 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1279 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1279 (CLD) (FC FRI-CHICKS — Petitioner Versus AKHTER MEHMOOD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz Rasool Jalbani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 39 & 40
Rights conferred by registered trade mark
Scope
Registration of 'trade mark'/'service mark'
Bona fide use of unregistered trade mark
Petitioner filed present petition for initiation of contempt proceedings on ground that the respondent had given the undertaking before the High Court in the First Appeal against Order to the effect that he would confine his business under his trademark, which had been registered in respect of goods and not in relation to providing services
Petitioner contended that the respondent could not use his trademark for restaurant services etc., as the same was registered for goods only
Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 laid down provision for registration of 'trademark' as well as 'service mark'
If an original owner of a trademark failed to register its trademark in relation to its services, he could not be taken to task for that failure
Bona fide use of an unregistered trademark could not be restricted in relation to a lawful business being conducted by a bona fide owner of the business, as long as the trademark was not in conflict with the rights of a third party or against the provision of any law in force
Registered trademark could also be used, even though, the same had not been registered in relation to corresponding or some other services, as long as the use in relation to said services did not infringe the rights of third party or was contrary to any law already in force
Respondent had not given any undertaking in said appeal for not using its registered trademark in relation to services; instead, the respondent had claimed the infringement of his trademark by the petitioner, and the petitioner, having been found at fault, had been directed to make changes in his trademark in order to prevent confusion and deception amongst general public
Criminal original petition was dismissed with cost accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Through this criminal original, the petitioner has prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for allegedly disobeying the order of this Court dated 01.06.2015 passed in F.A.O. No.29 of 2015.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had given an undertaking before this Court which is recorded in its order dated 01.06.2015 passed in F.A.O. No.29 of 2015 that he will confine his business under his trademark (Mark-A) which is registered in respect of goods and not in relation to providing services. He further submits that as the trademark of the respondent is only registered for goods, he cannot use it ostensibly for restaurant services etc.
3. When quarried as to whether there is any prohibition under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, or any Act or law which is applicable in Pakistan to prevent use of an unregistered trademark or a service mark, learned counsel cannot point out any such provision or law. The Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 lays down provisions for registration of 'trademark' as well as 'service mark'. If an original owner of a trademark fails to register its trademark in relation to its services, he cannot be taken to task for that failure. The respondent is not infringing the trademark of the petitioner or the rights of any other person rather in the previous round of litigation in F.A.O. No.29/2015 it was the respondent who claimed infringement of his trademark by the petitioner. In that appeal, the petitioner was found at fault as such, he was directed to make changes in his trademark in order to prevent confusion and deception amongst the consumers/general public.
4. Be that as it may, I find that no undertaking was given by the respondent before this Court on 01.06.2015 in F.A.O. No.29/2015 for not using its registered trademark in relation to services. The bona fide use of an unregistered trademark cannot be restricted in relation to a lawful business being conducted by a bona fide owner of the said business as long as the said trademark is not in conflict with the rights of a third party or against the provisions of any law in force at that time. Similarly, a registered trademark can also be used, even though, it has not been registered in relation to corresponding or some other services as long as the use in relation to said services does not infringe the rights of a third party or is contrary to any law being in force in the country at that time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to bring out a case of contempt against the respondent. This criminal original is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to be deposited by the petitioner in the Dispensary of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, within one month from the date of this order, receipt whereof will be deposited with Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for placing on this file, otherwise it would be collected as arrears of land. Office will place this file in the Chamber on May 23, 2016 as a "compliance case". SL/F-8/L Petition dismissed.