Pakistan Case Law← Search
2009 CLD 908

Messrs IRFAN WORLD OF SPORTS (PVT.) LTD. through authorized signatory vs

Citation2009 CLD 908
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Miscellaneous Appeal No,28 of 2006Appeal No,28 of 2006
Date2008-11-24
Judge(s)Munib Ahmed Khan
ResultAppeal dismissed

ORDER

1. MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---This miscellaneous appeal has been filed against Order dated 10-4- 2006, whereby, delay in filing the objection has been condoned. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an Opposition is to be filed within a period of two months from the date of publication, which was done on May 25, 2005 in Trade Marks Journal at Serial No,646 but no Opposition was filed within that period while TM-5 was filed on 25-7-2005, since it was beyond the time, therefore, it would have been rejected.

2. On the other hand, Mr. Salim Ghulam Hussain submits that Registrar has discretion to grant time under Rule 76 of the Trade Mark Rules, 1963. He submits that the satisfaction of the Registrar is necessary and since Opposition was filed on 4-8-2005 i,e, after a week, therefore, it was rightly condoned and now matter is to be decided on merits. He has relied upon a case reported as PLD 1992 SC 417.

3. After hearing the learned counsel Rule 76 of Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 has been perused.

4. Apparently, it gives a discretion to the Registrar that in the matters not dealt with by Rule 55 or 59, extension can be granted but it should be satisfactory and even the time can be granted for a month at one time and it can further be extended on monthly basis totaling six months but not beyond that. The impugned order dated 10-4-2006 shows that the explanation given by the respondent No,2 was satisfactory to the Registrar, hence delay was condoned by it. The default in non-filing of objection on time is procedural delay while the matter is still to be decided on merits, therefore, this discretion of Registrar may not be questioned and parties to contest the case on merits. There is only one delay of seven days and that too only at one time, whereas, the Registrar has power to grant time for a month at one time and that too can be extended upto to six months.

5. In such a situation, this appeal is dismissed, being misconceived and Registrar is directed to decided the issue within a period of four months on merit.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search