1. ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J. On 12.01.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant was given unconditional permission to appear on the next date of hearing to argue the case. Today a brief is held on his behalf. This matter was heard at some length on the last date and counsel took time, hence the following order:- The Appellant has challenged the decision of Registrar of the Trade Marks where appellant's Trade Mark NBN was refused on the basis of well-known Trade Mark NTN. Perusal of the Judgment and the accompanying material reflects that NTN is not only registered in Pakistan but many other countries of the world hence protected under Section 86 of the Trade Mark Ordinance 2001 as a well-known Trade Mark. The letter's NBN adopted by the Appellant are clearly disentitled to protection being resembling with the Trade Mark NTN, The impugned decision has relied on the leading case laws of CEC v. GEC, 1963 RPC-1, BEI v. BEL, 1982 PTC 377, ETC v. ATE, 1982 PTC 119 as well as AEC v. GEC, AIR-1974. Seemingly, the Appellants were also restrained by earlier Court cases to not to adopt or use the said NBN Trade Mark.
2. The law of Trade Mark is founded on the fundamental principle of protection of consumers by restricting use of similar, identical or confusingly Trade Mark by rival entities. There is no doubt that the Trade Mark NBN was only adopted by the Appellant after its proprietor having considered the prior use and goodwill of the Trade Mark NTN which was in existence for many years, not only in Pakistan but around the globe in relations to Ball Bearing and Taper Roller which is evident from the copies of the registration certificates. This Court in the case of Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf)
3. Pakistan v. Muhammad Fahim (2016 CLD 2144) has held that if a mark passes the "Moran in a Hurry", "Class Trinity " or "LAPP" tests, it escapes out of the legal protection umbrellaed by Trade Mark or Common Law, which is the case at hand, as NBN is not entitled to protection in the presence of NTN Trade Mark.
4. In these circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed as no illegality or apparent error is found in the impugned order.