| Case ID |
049166a0-79e9-4407-bcc7-bc73126d1af6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
M.A. No. 303 of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 24, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was filed by Petromark (Private) Limited against the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The main contention was that the Registrar erroneously allowed the respondent's application to proceed to registration with a disclaimer when the opposition was dismissed as time-barred. The court found that the Registrar acted beyond authority by modifying the Deputy Registrar's decision, which had already dismissed the opposition as infructuous. The order of the Registrar was set aside, restoring the Deputy Registrar's decision regarding the disclaimer. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural norms in trademark registration. |
| Summary |
In the case of Petromark (Private) Limited vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Sindh High Court addressed crucial issues surrounding the registration of trademarks under the Trade Marks Act of 1940. The case revolved around the procedural correctness of the Registrar's actions in allowing a trademark application to proceed despite an opposition that was deemed time-barred. The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements set forth in the Trade Marks Act. The judgment highlighted that the Registrar's interference in the Deputy Registrar's decision was not justifiable and led to the restoration of the Deputy Registrar's order. This case serves as a significant reference for trademark law, particularly concerning the timelines and procedural aspects of opposition notices, and it reinforces the duty of the trademark authorities to act within their conferred powers. Key trends in trademark law emphasize the necessity for clarity in opposition processes and the legal implications of procedural missteps. Lawyers and advocates in the field should take note of this precedent as it may influence future trademark registrations and opposition strategies. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
PETROMARK (PRIVATE) LIMITED,
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED
|
| Lawyers |
Salim G. Merchant,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
PETROMARK (PRIVATE) LIMITED
|
| Respondents |
another,
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 338 = 2011 CLD 1082
|
| Other Citations |
B.S. Industries v. The Deputy Registrar, Trademarks and another PLD 1969 Dacca 451
|
| Laws Involved |
Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)
|
| Sections |
15,
76
|