Additional District and Sessions Judge Anjum Raza Syed on Friday issued notices for December 17 (today) to proprietors of three companies for allegedly another company’s trade mark.
The petitioner, Forvil Cosmetics, complained that their registered trade marks Forvil Bio and Praima were being illegally used by a former business partner Zakauddin Shaikh, and two other companies Angel Enterprise and Mega Plast.
Plaintiffs Saeeda Jabeen and Ziauddin said that the respondents were producing, selling and distributing counterfeit products bearing unauthorised trade marks. They said the respondents were marketing their product as Forvil products. They said by doing so the respondents were also damaging the market reputation of the actual product.
The petitioners informed the court that Forvil Cosmetics was a registered partnership firm in business since 1993. They said that Forvil Cosmetics was created by Jabeen, Ziauddin and Shaikh (one of the respondents), through a deed of partnership in November 1993. The company had started producing cosmetic products under the brand names of Forvil, Bio-Amla, Bio-Magic, Bio-Care and Bio-Skin.
On July 25, 2003, the supplemental partnership deed was executed in furtherance to the first partnership deed between the plaintiffs and Kalida Perveen, Zakauddin’s wife. The supplemental deed was then registered with the office of the registrar of firms, Peshawar. Since then Zakauddin had been acting as Perveen’s authorised representative.
The plaintiffs said that Forvil Cosmetics has been using its various trademarks, protected by copyright laws, namely Forvil, Bio and Priama, either alone or in conjunction with other marks. They said that.
Forvil Products were sold and marketed under Forvil Intellectual Properties in Pakistan and elsewhere and are recognised by the trademark among the consumers. They said that Forvil Cosmetics has been in exclusive use of the Forvil’s Intellectual Properties and registered with the income tax and sales tax authorities. They said that Forvil Cosmetics had a commercial relationship with respondent Mega Plast, and provided raw material to the third respondent, Angel Enterprise, in return for packaging services. They said that Forvil Cosmetics had never authorised the respondents to market or sell Forvil products.
They said in addition to the production, sale and distribution of counterfeit products, Sheikh had published an advertisement in newspaper, claiming the proprietorship of the Forvil Cosmetics and its intellectual property rights.
The petitioner requested the court to pass a decree against the respondents and their managers, employees, servants, distributors, agents, retailers and dealers engaged in using Forvil’s trademark and selling counterfeit Forvil products.
The judge issued notice to the respondents for December 17 and sought their comments.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 17th, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ