Summary: Background: The appellant, Rani Foods (Pvt.) Limited, challenged the interim injunction granted to the respondent, Rani Refreshment FZC, by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad. The injunction prohibited the appellant from using or advertising the trademark "RANI" for beverages and related products. The respondent claimed exclusive rights to the "RANI" trademark based on a deed of assignment and subsequent registration under the Trademarks Ordinance, 2001. The appellant argued that the respondent was not the registered proprietor at the time of initiating the first suit. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent had the legal standing to claim exclusive rights over the trademark "RANI" at the time of instituting the first suit. -----2- Whether the appellant could be restrained from using the trademark "RANI" given the respondent's subsequent registration. -----3- Whether the interim injunction was valid in light of subsequent developments. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Standing of the Respondent: At the time of instituting the first suit (15.02.2013), the respondent's name had not been entered in the register of trademarks as the proprietor of "RANI" under Registration No.200181. The registration was only approved on 12.10.2015, albeit retroactively effective from 18.03.2012. Consequently, the respondent lacked standing as a "proprietor" when the suit was filed. --Restraint on Trademark Usage: The court modified the interim injunction to exclude restrictions related to the trademark "RANI" under Registration No.200181, Class-32. This modification acknowledged that this particular trademark could not have been the subject of the first suit, as the respondent was not registered as its proprietor at that time. --Validity of Interim Injunction: While the court recognized the respondent’s eventual rights following registration, it limited the scope of the injunction to trademarks other than "RANI" under Registration No.200181. The court emphasized the need to differentiate between claims made in the first suit and subsequent proceedings. The court modified the injunction order dated 10.04.2013, allowing the appellant to use the trademark "RANI" specifically under Registration No.200181, Class-32. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 39(2), Trademarks Ordinance, 2001: Defines the exclusive rights of a registered trademark proprietor. Definition of 'Proprietor', Trademarks Ordinance, 2001: Establishes that rights arise upon registration in the Trademarks Register.

Summary: The appellant, had entered into an agreement with the respondent, in 1993, wherein he obtained exclusive rights to publish and promote the book. However, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent argued that the suit was barred by Section 14(1) of the Copyrights Act, 1962, which limited the assignment of copyright to 10 years. The court examined the legal framework around copyright and publication rights, emphasizing the significance of Section 14 of the Copyrights Act. It clarified that the Copyright Act limits the assignment of copyright to 10 years, after which the copyright reverts to the author or their representative. The court also discussed the nature of copyright as an acknowledgment of a creator's exclusive rights. Furthermore, the court considered Section 28 of the Copyrights Act, which protects the typographical arrangement of an edition for 25 years. The judgment concluded that the agreement between the parties was subject to the legal limitations set forth in the Copyrights Act, which restricted the assignment of copyright to 10 years. Since the suit was filed after nearly 17 years from the date of the agreement, it was found to be barred by law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original judgment that rejected the plaintiff's claim. The judgment sheet highlighted the importance of complying with legal provisions and the limitations imposed by the Copyrights Act when entering into agreements related to copyright and publication rights.

Summary: (a) Intellectual Property Law – Trademark Infringement in Pharmaceuticals: ---- Trademark Rights – Infringement – Whether registration of a drug can override trademark rights – The petitioner’s trademark FERINJECT was registered in 2005, whereas the respondent’s drug FERIJET was registered in 2005 by the Drug Registration Board – The Intellectual Property Tribunal decreed that FERIJET was deceptively similar to FERINJECT and restrained the respondent from manufacturing, marketing, and selling the drug – Held, that registration of a drug under Drugs Act, 1976 does not override intellectual property rights under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 – Executive bodies such as the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) cannot override or disregard the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction in intellectual property matters. ----Cited Cases: • Novartis AG v. Nabiqasim Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017 CLD 1136) • The Welcome Foundation Ltd. v. Messrs Karachi Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (2000 YLR 1376) • Pfizer Ltd. v. Wilson's Pharmaceuticals (2002 CLD 1653) • Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2001(5) SCC 73) (b) Administrative Law – Regulatory Jurisdiction of DRAP: ---- Jurisdiction of DRAP – Whether DRAP can override Intellectual Property Tribunal decisions – The Drug Registration Board refused to cancel the registration of FERIJET despite the Intellectual Property Tribunal’s finding of trademark infringement – Held, that DRAP is an executive regulatory authority, not a judicial body – It has no power to sit in judgment over a decree of the Intellectual Property Tribunal – Where a trademark infringement ruling exists, DRAP must enforce it under Sections 7(11) and 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976 – Failure to do so amounts to undermining judicial authority and violates the principle of legality. ----Cited Cases: • Dawakhana Hakim Ajmal Khan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Lahore 899) • Soneri Travel & Tours Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Ltd. (2011 CLD 193) • Sandoz Ltd. v. Pakistan Pharmaceutical Products Ltd. (1987 CLC 1571) (c) Consumer Protection – Public Health Risks in Trademark Disputes: ---- Public Health – Likelihood of consumer confusion in drug trademarks – Confusion between pharmaceutical trademarks can lead to serious health risks – Held, that a stricter test must be applied in cases of pharmaceutical trademark infringement due to potential life-threatening consequences – Even minor phonetic or visual similarities between drug names can lead to misuse or incorrect prescriptions – Consumer protection takes precedence over regulatory convenience – DRAP failed to recognize the impact of public safety in its decision. ----Cited Cases: • Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd. (2001(5) SCC 73) • Sanofi-Aventis v. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA ((2010) 89 CPR (4th) 378 (TMOB)) • Novartis AG v. Nabiqasim Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (2017 CLD 1136) (d) Interpretation of Laws – Harmonization of Drug & Trademark Laws: ---- Statutory Interpretation – Whether Drug Laws Override Trademark Laws – The Drugs Act, 1976 and the DRAP Act, 2012 regulate drug safety, efficacy, and registration – The Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 protects trademark rights and prevents consumer deception – Held, that both statutes must be read harmoniously – There is no conflict between drug registration laws and trademark laws, as counterfeit drugs are explicitly prohibited under Section 23 of the Drugs Act – Regulatory authorities must give effect to final judicial determinations regarding trademark infringement. ----Cited Cases: • Bayer Corporation & ORS v. UOI & ORS (ILR (2009) SUPP. 2 Delhi 145) • Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Servier Laboratories (France) (2016 CLD 2229) (e) Disposition: ---- Impugned orders set aside – Drug FERIJET declared a counterfeit drug – Registration cancelled under Section 7(11) of the Drugs Act – DRAP directed to enforce the Intellectual Property Tribunal’s judgment – Respondent No.4 ordered to change the name of its drug before applying for re-registration – Costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on Respondent No.4, payable to the Petitioner within 4 weeks.

Summary: (a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 21 & 25: Trade mark infringement—Exclusive rights of registered proprietor—Prior use—Passing off—Trans-border reputation—Effect. Plaintiff, a UAE-based company, sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its registered trade mark "MAAZA" (registered under No. 142298 in Class 32 for beverages, juices, and soft drinks) and from passing off identical trade mark products as its own. Defendant No.1 contested the claim, asserting prior use in Pakistan since 1997 and invoking S.25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, to protect vested rights. Held, that the registration of a trade mark grants exclusive rights under S.21, and any unauthorized use of an identical or deceptively similar mark constitutes infringement. The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case based on international reputation and registration in multiple jurisdictions, including Pakistan. The defendant failed to prove prior use, as its trade mark application was filed on a "proposed to be used" basis, contradicting its claims of continuous use. Furthermore, the concept of trans-border reputation applied, as the plaintiff’s mark had global recognition due to extensive marketing, including in Pakistan, through advertising, international trade, and media exposure. (b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 10(2) & 25: Prior user rights—Bona fide adoption—Defendant’s claim of concurrent use—Failure to establish prior rights. The defendant argued that it had been using the "MAAZA" mark for fruit juices since February 1997 and had acquired goodwill and market share. However, documentary evidence, including tax records and invoices, failed to establish prior user rights before the plaintiff’s trade mark registration in 1997. Additionally, the defendant's trade mark application stated "proposed to be used," contradicting its prior use claim. Held, that mere use of a similar mark does not override the proprietary rights of a registered trade mark owner unless bona fide prior adoption is proved. The lack of documentary evidence before the trade mark registration date invalidated the defendant’s claim of concurrent rights. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2: Temporary injunction—Balance of convenience—Irreparable loss—Grant of relief to trade mark proprietor. For an injunction under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C., the court considered: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable loss. Plaintiff demonstrated proprietary rights through international and local trade mark registrations and continuous use of the mark. The defendant’s adoption of an identical trade mark created likelihood of deception, which could mislead consumers. Held, that balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as allowing continued unauthorized use would damage its brand reputation. Furthermore, irreparable loss was established, as unauthorized use of the mark would erode brand exclusivity and goodwill. The defendant could not claim honest concurrent use, as its adoption of the mark was not bona fide. (d) Words and Phrases—Acquiescence: Failure to act against infringer—Effect on proprietary rights. Defendant argued that the plaintiff had acquiesced to its use of "MAAZA" in Pakistan since 1997 and was estopped from claiming exclusive rights. Held, that mere delay in bringing an action does not bar a trade mark owner’s rights unless it is accompanied by encouragement or consent to the infringer. Plaintiff took legal action upon becoming aware of the defendant’s infringement, thus acquiescence did not apply. Fraudulent adoption of a well-known trade mark negates any claim of acquiescence. (e) Disposition: Plaintiff’s application for injunction granted. Defendant No.1’s application for recall of the interim injunction dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Messrs Tabaq Restaurant v. Messrs Tabaq Restaurant 1987 SCMR 1090 Mars Incorporated v. Pakistan Mineral Water Bottling Plant (Pvt.) Ltd. 2001 MLD 39 Dabur India Ltd. v. Hilal Confectionary (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2000 Karachi 139 Cooper’s Incorporated v. Pakistan General Stores 1981 SCMR 1039 National Detergents Limited v. MOD and International (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 MLD 590 J. N. Nichols (Vimto) PLC v. Mehran Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2000 Karachi 192

Summary: (a) Trade Marks Act, 1940 (V of 1940): ----Ss. 8(a), 10(1), 20 & 21 Trade mark infringement—Exclusive right to use—Protection of registered trade mark—Likelihood of deception or confusion Appellant, Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., owned the registered trade mark "MILO" since 1950 under registration number 10168 for food products—Appellant filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the respondent, Food International (Pvt.) Ltd., restraining it from using the trade mark "MILO" for bread, bakery products, and other food items—Appellant contended that the respondent was unlawfully using the trade mark "MILO" for bread, misleading consumers, and infringing upon its exclusive rights—Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant did not manufacture or sell bread, and thus, the respondent's use of "MILO" for bread did not create confusion—High Court disagreed, holding that the law protects registered trade marks against unauthorized use, even for different categories of goods, if such use is likely to deceive or cause confusion among consumers—Held, that the use of an identical trade mark for food products, even if not identical to those sold by the registered proprietor, was likely to mislead consumers and amounted to infringement—Permanent injunction granted in favor of the appellant. ----Cited Cases: Seven-Up Company v. Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory, PLD 1990 SC 313 Messrs Alpha Sewing Machine Company v. Registrar of Trade Marks, PLD 1990 SC 1074 Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Ch. Muhammad Altaf, PLD 1991 SC 27 Unilever Limited v. Sultan Soap Factory, PLD 1991 SC 939 Unilever PLC v. R.B. Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., 1999 MLD 1447 Mars Incorporated v. Pakistan Mineral Water Bottling Plant (Pvt.) Ltd., 2001 MLD 39 (b) Trade Mark Protection—Scope of Protection: ----Same description of goods—Unfair competition—Public deception Respondent's argument that "MILO" was a generic term referring to a type of grain was rejected—High Court held that the word "MILO" had acquired distinctiveness as a trade mark associated with the appellant's products—Respondent's bread was not made from milo grain, further negating its argument—Held, that trade mark protection extends to goods that, although not identical, belong to the same broad category (i.e., food products) and are marketed through similar trade channels—Unauthorized use of a registered trade mark, particularly when associated with low-quality products, can harm the goodwill and reputation of the original proprietor—Use of "MILO" for bread, therefore, constituted infringement. (c) Trade Mark Rights—Public Policy Considerations: ----Ensuring stability of registered trade marks—Consumer protection—Elimination of deceptive practices Court emphasized that once a trade mark has been duly registered and established in the market, it should not be allowed to be misappropriated—Held, that trade mark law is designed to prevent consumer deception and unfair competition—Protection of a registered trade mark is essential to maintain trust in commercial branding and prevent unauthorized parties from benefiting from another's established goodwill. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Permanent injunction granted in favor of the appellant—Respondent restrained from using the trade mark "MILO" for bread and related products—No order as to costs.