516/2015 Suit Jubilee Life Insurance Co (Plaintiff) V/S The United Insurance Co (Defendant)

516/2015 Suit Jubilee Life Insurance Co (Plaintiff) V/S The United Insurance Co (Defendant) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 06-MAY-15

Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 40, 39 & 2(xlv)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XXXIX, Kr. 1 & 2---Rights conferred by registration of trade mark---Infringement of registered trade mark---Plaintiff sought 'permanent injunction contending that the defendant's trademark `Amaan' was violative of the plaintiff's registered trademark `Amaan Plan'---Defendant took the plea that it was dealing with Takaful services under its trademark, whereas the plaintiff's service under the registered mark was limited to the life insurance policies; hence, their customers were not common and no violation took place--??Validity---In terms of S. 2(xlv) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, `similar services' included services which were of the same description-Defendant did not object to the similarity of the marks---Defendant had applied for registration of its mark `Amaan' under the same Class, which was Class 36 under Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001--??Takaful business might not be of conventional insurance, but the defendant's use of the mark, providing service relating the same Class, might cause confusion in the mind of the customers---No provision existed in Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 for registration of service mark as Takaful service---Licence obtained from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan for Takaful service meant that the plaintiff's registered mark could be infringed, nor had the same allowed the defendant to act in such manner-Plaintiff's mark `Amaan Plan' had gained so much popularity and goodwill that the customer, who might wish to have other polices of the plaintiff, could be deceived by the mark of the defendant, as the customers would presume that the plaintiff had also started dealing with other kinds of policies---Adoption of the same trademark by the defendant, which was phonetically and visually similar, was likely to create confusion and deception to the customers of the Class 36---Defendant could not show any plausible reason under the law as to why it had chosen the already invented word/mark of the plaintiff-Plaintiff, therefore, had prima facie case, balance of inconvenience was also in its favour and it would suffer irreparable loss, unless the application was allowed as prayed---Application for temporary injunction was allowed in circumstances.