Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    1999 Ylr 96

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    This document discusses a court case regarding an appeal over the registration of a trade mark. It notes that the respondent had provided sales figures showing they had been using the disputed trade mark since 1984-85, while the appellant failed to provide tax returns or copyright registration to support being the "prior user" of the mark. The court upheld allowing registration to the respondent based on being the prior user in terms of time. It also declares that the government is obligated under the constitution to appoint a plebiscite advisor, rejecting the argument that lack of funds prevents this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1999 Ylr 96

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    33 views4 pages
    This document discusses a court case regarding an appeal over the registration of a trade mark. It notes that the respondent had provided sales figures showing they had been using the disputed trade mark since 1984-85, while the appellant failed to provide tax returns or copyright registration to support being the "prior user" of the mark. The court upheld allowing registration to the respondent based on being the prior user in terms of time. It also declares that the government is obligated under the constitution to appoint a plebiscite advisor, rejecting the argument that lack of funds prevents this.

    Original Title

    1999 YLR 96

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a court case regarding an appeal over the registration of a trade mark. It notes that the respondent had provided sales figures showing they had been using the disputed trade mark since 1984-85, while the appellant failed to provide tax returns or copyright registration to support being the "prior user" of the mark. The court upheld allowing registration to the respondent based on being the prior user in terms of time. It also declares that the government is obligated under the constitution to appoint a plebiscite advisor, rejecting the argument that lack of funds prevents this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views4 pages

    1999 Ylr 96

    Uploaded by

    Asif Nawaz
    This document discusses a court case regarding an appeal over the registration of a trade mark. It notes that the respondent had provided sales figures showing they had been using the disputed trade mark since 1984-85, while the appellant failed to provide tax returns or copyright registration to support being the "prior user" of the mark. The court upheld allowing registration to the respondent based on being the prior user in terms of time. It also declares that the government is obligated under the constitution to appoint a plebiscite advisor, rejecting the argument that lack of funds prevents this.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    96 YEARLY LAW REPORTER [Vol.

    I
    11

    its existence to UNCIP Resolutions. The 45. In view of above, it is declared that
    provisions of. Azad Kashmir Constitution are presidem/Government is bound to appoint a cc
    replete with’the obligation of fulfilling these plebiscite adviser under section 11 of the
    requirements of UNCIP Resolutions. The Constitution, who, shall be a man of calibre [P
    resolutions besides being a part of the of plebiscite administrator as visualised by the
    Constitution rather, a base thereof are truce agreement i.e., "a personality of high
    outcome of Charter of United Nations. Every international standing and commanding
    citizen of the world village, be it the state of general confidence". It is accordingly R
    individual, is obliged to implementand act directed.
    upon the provisions of. the Unitedi Nations
    Charter and Resolutions passed by it or under M.B.A./173/AJK Order accordingly.
    its authority, unless the municipal law C(.
    specifically prohibits it. The- provisions of 0
    section' 11 are not only in line with the spirit 1999 Y .LR 96 r
    of the Constitution, but in furtherance of the C(
    United Nations Charter. The Courts being a [Karachi]
    part of the nation and State are not to act in di
    Before Raja Qureshi, J
    isolation. They are also required to watch the b(
    interest of the State and enforce the interest if QADEER AHMEb---AppelIant tt
    any organ of the State is failing in its duty tb; A
    do so. In doing so the Courts are performing versus'
    al
    their Constitutional duty even if it apparently THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE 0
    seems a political question. 1 MARKS, THE TRADE MARKS REGISTRY A
    44. The argument of the learned and another—Respondents aI
    advocates for the respondents that financial Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.43 to 45 of 1996,
    position of the Government does not allow it decided on 26th August, 1998. P:
    to bear expenses of the plebiscite adviser is ir
    also devoid of any force. A list is placed Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)-— • - b.
    before the Court of advisers, special 0
    —Ss.I5(2) & 76—Registration of trade
    assist^ce etc., appointed by the Government, IT
    mark— Objection— Appeal— Competency—
    besides about one and half dozen ministers, of b'
    Determination of "prior user" of disputed
    whidi we .take judicial notice. It is not it
    trade mark in terms of time—Respondent-had
    becoming of the respondents to avert the f
    given out sales figures to show that he was
    Constitution, and national responsibility under d
    the owner, originator and creator of disputed
    secliop 11 of the Constitution by putting up
    trade mark and had been using same since
    the lame excuse of lack of funds in the
    year 1984-85—Appellant had failed to file
    presence of a chain of advisers special
    any tax return in support of commodity of
    assistants and cabinet ministers for running,
    trade mark and did not possess any certificate
    the administration and political affairs of only
    of registration of copy-right testifying that he
    about five thousand sq. miles area and
    was 'prior user ' in point of time—Application
    ignoring the rights and interest of people
    of respondent for registration of trade mark
    spread over eighty thousand sq. miles, for was rightly allowed on basis of prior user—
    . whose sacrifies this system is running. '
    Registration: of trade mark to a user who had

    __

    You might also like