PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

HILAL FOODS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs DANPAK FOOD INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss — 2022 CLD 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 CLD 511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
CLD
Parties
HILAL FOODS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs DANPAK FOOD INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 54---C; Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962); Specific Relief Act (I of 1877); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

HILAL FOODS (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS DANPAK FOOD INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 40 & 67---Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 56 & 60---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Infringement of registered trade mark---Suit for permanent injunction and damages---Unfair competition---Copyright when infringed---Civil remedies for infringement of copyright---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Scope---Plaintiff alleged that the mark used by defendant was nearly identical, confusingly and deceptively similar to that of plaintiff's, visually as well as phonetically, besides the design, get up and colour scheme of both the marks were identical, hence, the defendant was deceiving customers---Validity---Held, in a shop if different bubble gums were displayed of different manufacturers, including that of plaintiff and defendant, prima facie, an unwary buyer/consumer of an average intelligence would not be confused between the chewing gum of defendant as that of the plaintiff---Defendant was not passing off its products as those of plaintiff's, thus, it could not be ignored that the defendant had got registered a trade mark for its product, which factor weighed in favour of defendant---Balance of convenience, which was one of the basic ingredients for grant of injunction at present was not in favour of plaintiff, rather leaned towards defendant---Question of irreparable loss could not be determined now but was to be decided at the later stage of the trial---Since all the basic elements for grant of injunction were not present, injunction application was dismissed.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English