MUHAMMAD MULTAZAM RAZA vs MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN Ss — 2022 CLD 615 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD MULTAZAM RAZA VS MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN Ss. 17(4), 18 & 39---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 24(5) & 40---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Co-ownership of trademark---Infringement of registered trademark---Passing off---Intellectual Property Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), jurisdiction of---One of the co-owners (respondent) of the registered trademark "Ranchers", without consent of the other co-owner (petitioner) entered into a tripartite Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and allowed use of the registered trademark "Ranchers"---Petitioner contended that his partnership firm with the respondent could not have participated in the said JVA without the consent of the petitioner; that by having agreed to extend to a third party, the right of master franchising "Ranchers" unilaterally, and without the consent of the petitioner, the third party had clearly infringed the registered trade mark jointly owned by the petitioner and respondent, against the clear restriction imposed by subsection (5) of section 24 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001"); that respondent and the third party had incorporated a Private Limited Company by the name of "Ranchers Cafe (Pvt.) Ltd.", mainly for the same business as was being conducted by partnership of petitioner and respondent under its trade mark "Ranchers"; that use of the trade mark/name, "Ranchers", by the said company, would create an impression and lead to a belief that the entity was not different from, "Ranchers" jointly owned by the petitioner and respondent, and such would "amount to passing off the trade mark registered in the name of the partnership---Tribunal returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C., on the grounds that since the trade mark had not been physically used by the third party in the course of trade, the suit was not maintainable within the meaning of section 46(1) & (2) of the Ordinance 2001, and that since the dispute was between the respondent and petitioner, as co-owners of a trade mark, any violation of section 24(5) read with section 69 of the Ordinance 2001 could not be agitated before the Tribunal---Held, that respondent without the petitioner's consent granted master franchise rights in respect of the subject trade mark to the third party, which was clearly violative of section 24(5) of the Ordinance 2001 and clearly entitled the aggrieved co-proprietor i.e. the petitioner to initiate infringement proceedings---Furthermore use of the name "Ranchers CafÃ© (Pvt.) Ltd." by the company incorporated by the respondent and a third party was clear infringement of the trade mark "Ranchers" as described/explained by section 40 of the Ordinance 2001---Both acts complained of by the petitioner before the Tribunal had in clear terms been described by sections 24 & 40 of the Ordinance 2001, respectively, as infringement of registered trademark and as provided therein were actionable thereunder---Petitioner's case thus undoubtedly fell within the exclusive jurisdictional ambit of the Tribunal as laid down by sections 17, 18 & 39 of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 ('IPO Act 2012')---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law.

MUHAMMAD MULTAZAM RAZA vs MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN Ss — 2022 CLD 615 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD