SAEED MUGHAL and 3 others V e r s u s M/s. NATIONAL AVIATION SERVICES (PVT) LIMITED; QUETTA
Judge Name: AHMAD KHAN LASHARI, J. MUHAMMAD Judgment Result: Appeal dismissed Other Law Journal References: -s. 16(2)–civil procedure code (v of 1908), o.xxxlx, rr. 1, 2–trial court restrained defendants from manufacturing and selling of Gas appliances under the name and style of “yesGas” till final disposal of suit-plaintiff was using/got the right of using trade mark of “nasGas” from competent authority in the year 1978 and was entitled to use the same, while defendants had only applied for registration of trade mark of “yesGas” on 22.6.2000, which was still pending before trade mark, registrar for decision subject to cross-objections and hearing to plaintiff-plaintiff has made out good prima facie case in his favour that he has proprietary right to the use of trade mark allotted in his favour i.e., “nasGas” by competent authority-defendants have no right to challenge the same or to use any trade mark which seems to be resembled or likely and identical to that of respondent’s trade mark i.e., “yesGas” unless it was not registered under the said law by the authority having jurisdiction–if defendants were not restrained plaintiff would be caused irreparable loss, injury and damage to the goodwill, reputation and business by creating confusion and deception in the minds of consumers/purchasers-defendants have failed to point out any defect or error in the impugned order passed by trial court same was maintained in circumstances.
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.