Applicability and proof
Applicability and proof legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Prior use and proprietorship of an unregistered trademark could be proved at interim stage by filing independent documentary evidence such as copies of undisputable sale invoices, advertisements, sale and publicity figures etc.
Prior use and proprietorship of an unregistered trademark could be proved at interim stage by filing independent documentary evidence such as copies of undisputable sale invoices, advertisements, sale and publicity figures etc.
"Applicability and proof", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939559
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Applicability and proof"
P L D 2013 Lahore 110
PIONEER CEMENT LIMITED through Company Secretary — Appellant Versus FECTO CEMENT LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2013 C L D 201
PIONEER CEMENT LIMITEDthrough Company Secretary — Appellant Versus FECTO CEMENT LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2016 C L D 1628
DIRECTOR GENERAL, EPA — Appellant Versus Messrs ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS LIMITED — Respondent
Court: Punjab Environmental Tribunal2026 P L C (C
UMER SHEHZAD Versus OMBUDSPERSON (MOHTASIB) PUNJAB and others
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 2026 Lahore 303
UMER SHEHZAD — Petitioner Versus OMBUDSPERSON (MOHTASIB) PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1988 C L C 969
MUHAMMAD SULLEMAN‑‑Applicant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED, HYDERABAD‑‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1977 Karachi 434
MUHAMMAD IDRIS‑Appellant Versus THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF KARACHI‑Respondent
Court:1996 M L D 1064
AHMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 other,‑‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1994 Lahore 97
and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs GRANULARS (PVT.) LTD: ‑‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑‑‑O. XIV, R. 5 & S.20‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117 (2)‑‑ Amendment of issue ‑‑‑Burden of proof‑‑‑Court's refusal to recast preliminary issue relating to its jurisdiction for shifting onus of proof to plaintiff‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Initially averments in plaint would determine venue of trial of suit‑‑ Provision of S.20, C.P.C. would regulate jurisdiction of Trial Court to entertain and try suits which had arisen out of contracts between parties‑‑‑Cause of action would, thus, arise at any of the following places viz. place where contract was entered into; place where contract was to be performed or performance thereof inns completed; and place wherein on performance of contract, any money to which suit related was expressly or impliedly payable‑‑‑Defendants, had agreed that action under contract would be constituted in any city of Pakistan, thus, waiving for such purpose any other venue‑‑‑Place of dealing between parties and place of payment of money would have material bearing on question of jurisdiction for holding trial of civil suits‑‑‑Defendants having objected to territorial jurisdiction, it was for them to prove ouster of jurisdiction 'of Court in question‑‑‑Trial Court had thus, correctly framed preliminary issue on jurisdiction and had correctly placed its onus of proof on defendants‑‑‑No illegality in regard to framing of issue or allocation of onus of proof was thus, pointed out to justify interference in revision.‑‑Burden of proof‑‑Jurisdiction.1983 S C M R 1119
MUHAMMAD AZEEM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: High Court