| Case ID |
04f48fbc-1613-4f22-aa7b-6333393b85e1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 1763 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 04, 2023 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 20, 2023 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the application for interim injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff, Hilal Foods (Pvt.) Limited, against Dabur India Limited and others. The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose pertinent prior litigation concerning the trademark 'HAJMOLA', which was critical to the case. The court emphasized the necessity for complete transparency regarding any previous related proceedings when seeking equitable relief. The decision highlighted that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, as the concealment of relevant information undermined their credibility. Consequently, the applications for interim relief were dismissed, reinforcing the principle that those seeking equity must come with clean hands. |
| Summary |
In the case of Hilal Foods (Pvt.) Limited vs. Dabur India Limited, the Sindh High Court addressed significant issues surrounding trademark infringement and the requirements for obtaining interim injunctions. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the trademark 'HAJMOLA' constituted passing off and infringed upon their registered trademark rights. However, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose ongoing litigation related to the same trademark, which was essential to the case's context. The court ruled that complete candor about previous legal actions is crucial when seeking equitable relief, and the plaintiff's failure to do so led to the dismissal of their application for an interim injunction. This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of transparency in legal proceedings and the principle that parties must come to court with clean hands. Keywords: trademark infringement, interim injunction, equitable relief, trademark rights, passing off. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
HILAL FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED,
DABUR INDIA LIMITED
|
| Judges |
Zafar Ahmed Rajput
|
| Lawyers |
Ms. Saira Sheikh,
Mohsin Tayebaly and Co.
|
| Petitioners |
HILAL FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED (FORMERLY HILAL CONFECTIONERY (PVT.) LIMITED)
|
| Respondents |
DABUR INDIA LIMITED,
Defendants Nos. 3 to 9
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 4249 = 2024 CLD 713
|
| Other Citations |
Farooq Ghee and Oils Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry and others 2015 SCMR 1230,
Messrs Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Messrs Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another AIR 1997 SC 1398,
Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others v. Muhammad Latif 2005 YLR 756,
Muhammad Qasim v. Razia Begum and 5 others 2012 CLC 1118,
Bayer AG. through Authorized Signatory v. Bayhealth Care (Private) Limited through Chief Executive Director, Company Secretary and another 2013 CLD 2087,
Messrs Snowhite Dry Cleaners v. Sufiyan Ahmed 2013 CLD 57,
Roznama Hamdard through Chief Editor v. Hamdard National Foundation Pakistan 2010 SCMR 95,
Wrangler Apparel Corporation v. Axfor Garments through Proprietor/Manager/Partners 2008 CLD 70,
Vifor (International) Inc. through Authorized Signatory v. MeMon Pharmaceutical through Sole Proprietor 2013 CLD 1531,
Pioneer Cement Limited through Company Secretary v. Fecto Cement Limited through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others PLD 2013 Lah. 110,
Seven Up Company v. Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory and 3 others PLD 1990 SC 313,
ARC International through Authorized Signatory v. Ahmer Mansoor and 2 others 2012 CLD 226,
Messrs Tabaq Restaurant v. Messrs Tabaq Restaurant 1987 SCMR 1090,
J.N. Nichols (Vimto) PlC A Company incorporated in the United Kingdom v. Mehran Bottlers (Private) Limited, Karachi PLD 2000 SC 192,
M. Sikandar Sultan v. Masih Ahmed Shaikh 2003 CLD 26,
Maaza International Company L.L.C. v. Popular Food Industries Ltd. and another 2004 CLD 171,
Tapal Tea (Private) Limited v. Shahi Tea Company 2002 CLD 1113,
Pakistan Drug House (Pvt.) Limited v. Rio Chemical Company and another 2003 CLD 1531,
Ch. Zafarullah Khan and 6 others v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others PLD 1975 SC 15,
Sahib Khan v. Muhammad Ramzan and another 2000 MLD 729
|
| Laws Involved |
Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
39,
40,
1,
2
|