2026 CLD 757 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

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

VS S. 10---Deceptive marketing practice---Packaging and trade dress---Examination---Complainant alleged that respondent was employing deceptive marketing practice by using packing material similar to its energy drink already in market for past many years---Validity---Commission is empowered to examine packaging, trade dress or labelling which amounts to fraudulent use or parasitic copying, giving rise to consumer confusion and unfair market advantage, irrespective of the fact that both the complainant and respondent hold registered trademarks---Evidence adduced before the Commission was conclusive enough to hold that strikingly similar packaging, labeling and bottle design of energy drink 'STORM' of respondent with complainant's energy drink 'STING' were sufficient to cause confusion in the mind of an ordinary consumer---From the use of similar transparent punted bottle, to the mirrored layout of label, replication of ingredient list and its presentation, the colour of drink and overall visual impression, the respondent's product had created a deceptive association with complainant's well-known brand---Such imitation resulted in unjust commercial advantage to respondent at the expense of complainant's brand equity and market reputation---Respondent's adoption of the 'STING' energy drink packaging and branding constituted a fraudulent use of complainant's trademark and overall product get-up---Substantial visual similarity in bottle deign, colour scheme and overall presentation was likely to mislead or confuse an ordinary consumer into believing that the two products were the same make---Such imitation by respondent not only undermined distinctiveness and goodwill built by the complainant but also amounted to deceptive marketing practice prohibited under S. 10(2)(d) of Competition Act, 2010---Competition Commission of Pakistan imposed penalty upon respondent for acting in contravention of S. 10(1) of Competition Act, 2010---Complaint was allowed in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD