1. ' M/s. Colgate Palmolive (Pakistan) Limited are the successors to M/s. National Detergents Limited.
2. M/s. National Detergents Limited had applied for registration of a trade mark "ABC' to be used for their goods falling in class 5 (phenyle, insecticides, disinfectants, pesticides, fungicides, mat, air freshing and air purifying preparations, preparations for killing weeds and destroying vermin.
3. ' The respondent raised preliminary objections under sections 19(1), 8(a) and 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, as according to him, mark applied for was not a distinctive mark. The respondent issued a show-cause notice to the appellants embodying his objections. Appellant's explanation was accepted by him with regard to the objections raised under sections 19(1) and 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, while he upheld his objection under section 6(1)(e) of the said Act and dismissed application. According to the respondent the trade mark applied for consisted of opening 3 letters of English alphabet and such mark could only be registered if it is being used for long time. According to him, any such mark which is not in use in Pakistan is objectionable under section 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 and cannot be registered. It is against such a decision that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
4. ' Mr. Saleem Ghulam Hussain, Advocate for the appellants, mainly contends that the prohibition contained in section 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act relates to certain "names, signature or any word". In this case mark "ABC" applied for registration is neither a name nor a signature nor any word. He has also referred to the definition of mark contained in section 2(0 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 which includes not only words but letters as well alongwith other marks mentioned therein. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case reported in 1987 CLC 1287.
5. ' Mr. S.D. Rana, Advocate appearing for the respondent, contends that normally a trade mark comprising of letters is not registrable unless the same mark is shown to have acquired distinctiveness by its long users. In this case it was not even claimed by the Appellants that the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctiveness in any manner. He referred to the cases reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 781 and PLD 1992 Kar.
6. 115.
7. The provision contained in section 6(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 indeed does not contain any prohibition on registration of a trade mark comprising of certain "letters". The decision of respondent therefore, is based on erroneous reading of that provision of law. The decision impugned in this appeal is set aside and case remitted to him for re-consideration of the application in light of correct provision of law. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.