SHAHID KARIM, J. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 and brings a challenge to the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Intellectual Property Tribunal, Lahore. The impugned order was passed on an application for grant of temporary injunction brought by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
2. The facts are admitted on all hands. The issue relates to the rights under the business by the name and style of Riaz & Sons which was admittedly established by the father of the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 2. It is also undisputed that both the parties have applied for registration of trademark in their own name which applications are pending. Thus, both the parties claim the exclusive use of the trademark by either of them. The existence of partnership arrangement established in 2006 is also an undisputed fact and which clearly shows that both the petitioner and respondents Nos.1 and 2 are partners in the firm. From the facts explicated it is discernible clearly that the issue between the parties relates to the use of trademark 'Riaz & Sons' by the parties as also the respective obligations arising out of the partnership agreement. It has been held in the impugned order that the trade name belongs to the partnership firm and not to the individual partners. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the 'partnership firm has not been dissolved and the assets of their father to the extent of 78% of the shareholding is to be distributed in accordance with the Partnership Act, 1932. Having held so much the Tribunal went wrong in granting injunction to one of the partners i.e. respondents Nos.1 and 2 and restraining the petitioner from the use of the trademark till disposal of the suit. This would give a free hand to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to use the trademark to the exclusion of the petitioner which is iniquitous and does not fulfill the requirements of law. Clearly, the dispute has to be determined regarding use of the trademark as also the right of one of the parties to its use upon registration of the trademark which applications are still pending. In the meantime, none of the parties can be restrained from the use of trademark to the exclusion of the other. Therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in accepting the application of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The case law cited by the respondents does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case and is distinguishable. It is not necessary to advert to the case law in detail.
3. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.