Each case study explains the background, the questions before the court, the decision and the court’s reasoning, followed by our comment on what it means in practice. These summaries are general information, not legal advice. They may not reflect later appeals or changes in the law. Read the full judgment and take advice on your own facts.
Trademarks
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.
POWER SONIC trade mark dispute
A former local agent who had registered its foreign principal’s mark was refused an injunction. The court treated the foreign owner’s mark as well known and protected under sections 86 and 92 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and the Paris Convention.
Muhammad Shah Kakar v. Intellectual Property Tribunal at Sindh & Balochistan
The court held that S.R.O. 170(I)/2017 (Customs Rules, 2001, rules 678 to 686) applies to imported goods only, and that applying a registered mark to goods for export is use in Pakistan under sections 5(2) and 40 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001. The registered owner was granted an injunction.
Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital: application to revoke a registered trade mark
Applications to revoke or invalidate a registered trade mark go to the Registrar of Trade Marks, unless proceedings about that mark are already pending in the court (sections 73(4), 80(4) and 116 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001).
Enforcement and jurisdiction
Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital v. Syed Muhammad Salahuddin
A suit relating to rights in a trade mark, under section 117 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 as amended in 2023, must be brought before an Intellectual Property Tribunal. The plaint was returned for filing there.
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.
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Virgin Express International (Pvt.) Ltd.
A suit for trade mark infringement and passing off was transferred to the Intellectual Property Tribunal, including the connected claim to change the defendant’s company name, because the claims could not be separated.
Patents
Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Novartis AG
The court held that the proviso to section 27(2) of the Patents Ordinance, 2000 on pending proceedings applies only to patents of addition, so the Controller was not barred from sealing the main patent while appeals were pending without a stay. Patentability was left to the main case.
Industrial designs
ORO Industries v. Muhammad Hanif (Mubeen Enterprises)
A registered pencil design was cancelled for lack of newness or originality (sections 2(e), 3(2) and 10 of the Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000), but an interim injunction was granted on trade mark and trade dress grounds against the similar mark ZORRO.
Copyright
The State v. Muhammad Amin Haroon
The FIA may act on Copyright Ordinance offences only where Government work is involved; private copyright disputes go to the police and the courts. Infringement requires an identifiable owner or claimant of the original work.
Domain names
Imtiaz Super Market trade mark and domain name dispute
Interim order: until the next hearing, the defendant was restrained from using IMTIAZ in its .pk domain name, in emails under that domain and in a WhatsApp group presented as connected with the plaintiff. No final finding was made.
Geographical indications
APEDA v. Registrar of Trade Marks (BASMATI certification trade mark)
India’s APEDA appealed the refusal of its application to register the word BASMATI as a certification trade mark in Australia. The court dismissed the appeal: because basmati rice from Pakistan is also sold in Australia as basmati, the word could not distinguish rice certified by APEDA.
Judgments checked on 25 October 2026. Sources: High Court of Sindh case law portal and the Federal Court of Australia.
Discuss your matter with us
Tell us what you need. We will confirm receipt and keep you updated at every stage.