| Case ID |
2e8689bb-2ea3-4ce1-9534-4ede66b18596 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Judicial Miscellaneous No.9 of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 20, 2000 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The application for the removal of the trade mark 'Laser' from the register was dismissed. The court found that the applicant, Malhotra Shaving Products Limited, failed to demonstrate that they were an aggrieved person under the Trade Marks Act. Although the applicant claimed to have adopted the mark in 1985 and used it in India and Pakistan, they could not establish sufficient evidence of use in Pakistan or the non-use of the mark by the respondents for the required period. The court noted that the delay in applying for registration and rectification was unjustified, and the evidence submitted was inadequate to support their claims. The applicant was advised that they could apply again if they were able to bring sufficient proof in the future. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Sindh High Court dealt with an application concerning the removal of the trade mark 'Laser' under the Trade Marks Act (V of 1940). The applicant, Malhotra Shaving Products Limited, contended that the registration of the mark by Accuray Surgicals Ltd. was without bona fide intention and that there had been no use of the mark for five years. The court emphasized the necessity for the applicant to prove they were an aggrieved person, which they failed to do. Key points included the lack of evidence showing the mark's use in Pakistan and the failure to justify the delay in filing for rectification. This decision highlights the importance of demonstrating bona fide use and timely action in trade mark disputes. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Malhotra Shaving Products Limited,
Accuray Surgicals Ltd.
|
| Judges |
Zahid Kurban Alvi, J
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Hamid Iqbal,
Salim Ghulam Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
Malhotra Shaving Products Limited
|
| Respondents |
Accuray Surgicals Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2197 = 2002 CLD 878
|
| Other Citations |
Cluett, Peabody & Co. Inc. v. Assistant Registrar of T.M. 1991 SCMR 927,
Abdul Aziz v. Seven up Co., Karachi and another PLD 1978 Kar. 14,
Powell T.M. 1 RPC 195,
Powell v. Bringham Vinergar Brewery Coy. (The Yorkshire Relish case) (1894) AC 8,
Crossly and Coy's Trade Mark 15 RPC 377,
National Bell Company v. Metal Goods Manufacturing Company AIR 1971 SC 898,
Chiswick Products Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi PLD 1983 Kar. 423
|
| Laws Involved |
Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)
|
| Sections |
37(1)(a)(b),
46(2)
|