Background
The plaintiff registered the label mark POWER SONIC in Pakistan for batteries in 2012. Until about 2009–2010 it had been the Pakistani representative of a California company that sells batteries under the POWER SONIC mark, sourced from China and Vietnam.
After the relationship ended, the California company supplied other distributors in Pakistan under the same mark, and the plaintiff sued. The plaintiff admitted that the marks were identical in appearance and sound.
Questions before the court
- Whether the plaintiff’s Pakistani registration entitled it to an interim injunction.
- Whether the California company’s mark is well known in Pakistan under section 86 and protected under Chapter X of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001.
Decision
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction and allowed the California company’s application, holding that its mark is protected under Chapter X. The plaintiff was left free “to approach Registrar for fresh registration of its independent mark”.
The court’s reasoning
- Pakistan is a Paris Convention country (section 85), and Chapter X protects the marks of owners from Convention countries.
- The plaintiff’s own admissions were “sufficient to bring the mark of the defendant no.3 as ‘well known in Pakistan’” under section 86(1)(b).
- Section 92 protects a trade name without the need for filing or registration.
- The plaintiff had not pleaded that the foreign owner knew of or accepted the registration (section 90).
- Allowing an agent to register its principal’s well-known mark and take over its goodwill would defeat the purpose of the Paris Convention.
What this means in practice
Provisions and authorities
Laws and rules
- Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001: sections 73(3), 80, 85, 86, 90, 92 and 96
- Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
Cases referred to
- The plaintiff relied on PLD 2000 Karachi 139, 2007 CLC 1610 and 2003 PLC 26; the order does not discuss them.
Source
Read the judgment on the High Court of Sindh case law portal ↗
The published order sheet does not give the full names of the parties.
This summary is general information, not legal advice. It may not reflect later appeals or changes in the law. Read the full judgment and take advice on your own facts. Checked on 25 October 2026.
Related
Famous Brands (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Samsonite IP Holdings S.à r.l.
A former distributor’s appeal was dismissed, so the order to remove SAMSONITE signage stayed in place. The court confirmed that a well-known mark is protected under section 86 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 even without registration or sales in Pakistan. Sales of genuine goods were not stopped.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.
Our comment