Messrs NOON PAKISTAN Limited Versus UNITED DAIRY FARMS Limited

This appeal by Messrs Noon Pakistan Limited, Lahore, assailing the validity of the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, respondent 2, dated the 3rd August, 1986, allowing registration of respondent No.1's trade mark PAKPUR in respect of butter and other dairy products arises out of the following circumstances. The appellant's trade mark NURPUR regarding butter, milk powder and other dairy products, had been in use since 1973, and was registered on the 17th February, 1976. United Dairy Farms Limited, Lahore, respondent 1, applied for registration of its mark PAKPURE whose user touching butter milk, etc., it claimed since 1971. Registration was not permitted as PAKPURE was considered to be descriptive of the goods. Thereafter, on tire 10th April, 1983, respondent 1 moved application to get the mark PAKPUR concerning butter, milk, etc., registered. It claimed user of the said mark from 1981. The appellant entered opposition and maintained that apart from the mark PAKPUR being similar to its mark NURPUR and apt to cause deception and confusion to the customers was hit by the provisions of section 6 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. However, the Registrar thought that the two words PAKPUR and NURPUR were different and that use of PAKPUR would not cause any confusion or deception. He allowed registration of YAKPUR subject to disclaimer of the word PAK and the letter U.

2. As before the Registrar the appellant took up the stand before this Court that whereas respondent No, 1 had been using its mark PAKPURE it had never used the mark PAKPUR to manufacture and market its products and its attempt to get the mark PAKPUR registered was not bona fide. No doubt respondent 1 placed on the record documentary material evidencing manufacturing and sale of its dairy products under the mark PAKPURE yet it did not produce anything to show that he had manufactured, sold or derived any income by the sale of its products under the name of PAKPUR. The learned counsel for the appellant went so far as to say that if respondent No.1 could produce any product manufactured under the mark PAKPUR even today the appellant would withdraw from the appeal. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 asserted that dairy products especially butter under the mark PAKPUR were freely available in the market. With the agreement of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1 an official of this Court was sent to the market to purchase butter or any other product being sold under the mark PAKPUR. The official reported that despite his best efforts he could not get butter or any other dairy products under the name PAKPUR though dairy products particularly butter under the name NARPUR were readily available. In these circumstances respondent No.1's claim of the user of the mark PAKPUR is not sustainable. In the absence of user of the mark PAKPUR respondent No.1 was hardly entitled to get registration. Needless to say that the word PAK is recognized the world over as abbreviation of Pakistan and on that account the word PAKPUR could not be registered as a trade mark. The appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and respondent No.1's application for registration of the mark PAKPUR is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

AA./N‑127/L Appeal accepted.