| Case ID |
2ffa88e8-d902-481a-9ae3-8d3fe57fd90f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
J.M. No.36 of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 10, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
Aug 05, 2006 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court addressed the application for cancellation of Design No.10651-D acquired by the respondent. The applicant claimed to have compensated the respondent for exclusive rights over the design of a three-wheeled vehicle. However, the court found both parties had not presented the true facts, indicating a lack of written agreements and mutual understanding. The court emphasized the need for evidence and directed both parties to file their respective claims and provide evidence to support their contentions. The absence of clarity on who holds the rights to the design due to conflicting claims led to the decision to further investigate the matter. |
| Summary |
In the case of Thal Jute Mills Ltd. vs. Najeeb Nawar and Others, the Sindh High Court dealt with an application concerning the cancellation of a registered design for a three-wheeled vehicle. The applicant, Thal Jute Mills, argued that they had compensated the respondent for exclusive rights to the design, whereas the respondents claimed ownership based on their contributions to the project. The court found that both parties had failed to provide accurate representations of the facts and lacked a written agreement. This led the court to conclude that the best course of action was to frame issues and allow both parties to present evidence to clarify the ownership of the design. The ruling underscores the importance of formal agreements in intellectual property disputes, particularly in the context of design rights under the Registered Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
THAL JUTE MILLS LTD.,
NAJEEB NAWER,
OTHER RESPONDENTS
|
| Judges |
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI
|
| Lawyers |
Rashid Anwar,
Abdul Rehman
|
| Petitioners |
THAL JUTE MILLS LTD.
|
| Respondents |
OTHER RESPONDENTS,
NAJEEB NAWER
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 333,
2008 CLD 107
|
| Other Citations |
Ward Lock and Company Limited v. Long (1906) 2 Ch. D. 550,
Lawarence and Buller Limited v. Aflalo and Cook 1904 Appeal Cases 17,
Lamb v. Evans (1993) 1 Ch 218,
Muhammad Mohsin Butt v. Muhammad Inayat Butt 2005 CLD 747,
Province of West Pakistan v. Mahboob Ali PLD 1976 SC 483,
The Attorney General and Ephraim Hutchings (Relator) v. The Directors and The Co. of The Great Eastern Railway (1880) 5 HL 473,
Ashbay Railway Company v. Riche (1860) 8 HLC 721,
Fida Ali Yousuf Ali v. Graxalt PLD 1967 Kar. 637,
Commissioner for Income Tax (Central) Karachi v. Messrs Habib Insurance Company Limited Karachi PLD 1969 Kar. 278,
The United Bank Limited v. Messrs Pak Wheat Products Limited PLD 1970 Lahore 235,
Bell Honges v. City Wall Properties (1966) 2 All ER 674,
(1993) 76 Company Cases 1
|
| Laws Involved |
Registered Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000
|
| Sections |
2,
10,
25
|