2021 PLP 1142 (CLD)
TREND INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor — Appellant Versus MUSTAFA REHMAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1142 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TREND INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor — Appellant Versus MUSTAFA REHMAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1142 (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 2021 PLP 1142 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1142 (CLD) (TREND INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor — Appellant Versus MUSTAFA REHMAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Mehmood Baig for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 49
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Scope
Appellant was restrained from marketing its products on the issue of resemblance in packing with that of respondent's
Appellant was deprived of marketing its products, which was duly registered; without there being any justification in that behalf
Mandatory injunction could not be granted without hearing of other side because it operated against certain legal rights or obligations
Departure could only be made if such right was being used to delay/ frustrate the proceedings or exceptional circumstances so justified which must include irreparable loss
Impugned order was unjustified and void ab initio, as such the same was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the application for injunction afresh.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.
Admittedly, parties are not at dispute with regard to trademark registration, however, issue relates to the alike (similar) packing of two products. Order dated 04..10.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Intellectual Property Tribunal reflects that same is ex-parte, as only Respondents were heard and after hearing them, the appellant was restrained from marketing of its products on the issue of resemblance in packing. It seems that through interim order the appellant has been deprived of marketing its products, which is duly registered; without there being any justification in this behalf and the said order merely rests on the arguments and prima facie is without adjudication of such issue, which normally is the core issue in such like matters. Needless to mention that normally mandatory injunction can't be granted without hearing of other side because same surely operates against certain legal rights or obligations. It may well be added that such like mandatory injunction be not granted without allowing opportunity of hearing which, otherwise, is integral part of every proceedings within meaning of Article 10-A of Constitution, particularly when the decision of such like proceedings is likely to effect upon rights or obligations. A departure,, however, may be made only if such right is being used to delay/frustrate the proceedings or exceptional circumstances so justifies which (exceptional circumstances) must include irreparable loss. Reliance in this regard may be made to the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another v. Muhammad Yaqoob and 49 others (1994 SCMR 2024), relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced as under: "Be that as it may, the learned High Court appears to have acted in, haste in the issuance of ad interim mandatory injunction without hearing the opposite side and considering the legal aspect of the case. The impugned order is; therefore, not sustainable. We accordingly, convert this petition into appeal and by allowing the same, set aside the impugned order of the High Court. However, it is directed that the main revision petition may be disposed of as early as possible preferably within one month."
2. In the instant matter status of both marks as 'registered is not disputed as well marketing thereof, therefore, it is always demand of safe administration of justice to provide an opportunity of hearing even while granting a mandatory injunction which (injunction) has been assailed to have deprived appellant of its rights which, too, without hearing. Accordingly, impugned orders found to be unjustified and ab initio void, same is set aside and application for injunction be deemed to be pending which, the tribunal shall decide afresh within one month after hearing the parties. The parties shall ensure their presences before tribunal. The instant appeal stands disposed of along with listed application. SA/T-19/Sindh Case remanded.