Background
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. and Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., which use VIRGIN as a mark and trade name and hold Pakistani registrations, sued a Pakistani company that used VIRGIN in its name for courier, express delivery, air charter and customs-clearance services.
The suit was filed in 2001 and an interim injunction was granted in September 2001. The defendants were later debarred from filing a written statement and stopped attending. The plaintiffs’ evidence was recorded in 2015. They asked for a permanent injunction, accounts, damages of Rs. 25 million and removal of VIRGIN from the defendant’s company name.
Questions before the court
- Whether, after the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, the High Court could still decide the suit.
Decision
The court transferred the whole suit to the Intellectual Property Tribunal at Karachi and directed the parties to appear there on 30 October 2023.
The court’s reasoning
- Section 17(1) of the Act requires pending IP cases to be transferred to the Tribunal.
- “This suit primarily involves infringement of trademark and passing-off”, so, following Muhammad Multazam Raza (2022 SCMR 979), “this Court has no option but to order the transfer of this suit to the Tribunal”.
- The claim to change the defendant’s company name under the Companies Act, 2017 could not be split off: “Therefore, the entire suit has to be transferred”, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue that relief as the law allows.
- The court also relied on a Division Bench decision (C.P. No. D-533 of 2020) and on Shaheen Chemist v. Zahid Mehmood Chaudhry (2023 CLD 1).
What this means in practice
Provisions and authorities
Laws and rules
- Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012: sections 2(h), 16, 17 and 18
- Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001: sections 39, 73(4), 80(4) and 117
- Companies Act, 2017
Cases referred to
- Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan, 2022 SCMR 979
- Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights v. Federation of Pakistan, C.P. No. D-533 of 2020 (Division Bench, 6 December 2022)
- Shaheen Chemist v. Zahid Mehmood Chaudhry, 2023 CLD 1
- Mahile Engine Components Japan Corporation v. Azam Autos, Suit No. 2058 of 2019
Source
Read the judgment on the High Court of Sindh case law portal ↗
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
Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan (2022 SCMR 979), as applied in Suit No. 226 of 2022
Where trade mark infringement is alleged, with or without passing off, the suit must be filed before the Intellectual Property Tribunal, which has exclusive jurisdiction under the IPO-Pakistan Act, 2012. The High Court returned the plaint on that basis.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.
Our comment