1992 PLP 1596 (MLD)

Dates of hearing: 20th February and 2nd March, 1992. This is an appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi (hereafter called the respondent) dated 27‑3‑1991 has preferred this appeal as the appellants' Trade Mark Application bearing No. 8618 in Class‑3 for registration of Trade Mark DOUBLE was refused by the respondent. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants filed the said application in the Trade Mark Registry of Pakistan in respect of goods Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations, soaps, perfumer, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotion, shampoo, dentifrices and detergents all goods in Class‑

3. After filing of the said application Trade Mark (sic) show‑cause notice dated 23‑2‑1986 stating that the applied mark was not registrable on the following basis: (a) that the mark is objectionable under sections 8 (a) and 10 (i) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 as the same conflicts with earlier registered mark DOBBEL MAN. (b) that the mark is objectionable under section 6 (1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 as it is descriptive. The appellant replied to the said show‑cause notice and contended that the mark does not conflict with the earlier mark nor the same is descriptive. Afterwards the matter was heard on 21‑7‑1990 and vide letter dated 27‑1‑1991 respondent by his order dated 6‑1‑1991 refused the said application for the applied mark. Thereafter the appellant applied on prescribed form TM‑15 for giving the grounds for decision for filing appeal which were supplied by the Trade Mark Registry vide their letter dated 27‑3‑1991. Notice was issued to the respondent to appear before the Court but he has failed to appear or file any objection to the appeal. 1t is contended by Mr. Salim Ghulam Hussain learned counsel for the appellant that the order appealed against is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside being devoid of any legal efficacy. It was urged that the respondent grossly erred that the applied mark describes the quality of the ingredient or component of the produce. Word DOUBLE used in the proposed registration of trade mark has no direct reference or anything to do with the character or quality of goods. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on 1987 MLD 2115 in which it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that "the mere fact that a single trade mark word is a dictionary or common word would not by itself qualify it from being registered under Trade Marks Act unless it has direct reference to character or quality of goods. It was urged that in the present case the word DOUBLE has no reference whatsoever with goods having bleaching preparations and substance for laundry use, cleaning, polishing etc. As to the other objection raised by the respondent that the proposed trade mark is in conflict with the earlier registered mark DOBBEL MAN, it was contended that the same in every respect is different and distinguishable from the proposed trade mark DOUBLE. Thus the respondent has erred in not applying correctly the principles of law of comparison of trade mark and provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. 1n doing so the respondent has failed to exercise judicial discretion in favour of the appellant. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are not without substance. Admittedly the word "DOUBLE" has neither direct or indirect reference to the quality or character of the goods in which appellant has been trading. As to whether the earlier registered mark "DOBBEL MAN" is in conflict with the registration of the proposed trade mark "DOUBLE" requires minute consideration and examination. The facts of the case do not call for rejection/refusal of the application at the preliminary stage by the '4 respondent and in the circumstances it would have been proper for him to have accepted the mark for advertisement in the Trade Mark Journal subject to this objection, whereafter he could have considered the matter of comparison o mark in the opposition proceedings if filed by any person so as to avoid conflict of decisions. Hence I accept this appeal and set aside the decision dated 27‑3‑1991 passed by the learned respondent with direction that the proposed mark be advertised in the Trade Mark Journal. A.A. /C‑271 /K. Appeal accepted.