Mr

Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

High Court Appeals No. 460 & 461 of 2018

Date	Order with signature of Judge

HCA No.460/2018 :

Hearing priority case:

1. For orders on office objection a/w reply as at “A” :

2. For orders on CMA No.3593/2018 (Stay) :

3. For hearing of Main Case :

HCA No.461/2018 :

Hearing priority case:

1. For orders on office objection a/w reply as at “A” :

2. For orders on CMA No.3596/2018 :

3. For hearing of main case :

14.12.2018 :

Mr. Ovais Ali Shah, advocate for appellant in HCA No.460/2018 and respondent No.2 in HCA No.461/2018.

Mr. Arshad M. Tayebaly, advocate for appellant in HCA No.461/2018.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Pirzada, advocate for respondent No.1 in both HCAs.

…………

Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 in both these appeals which are taken on record. A statement dated 14.12.2018 has been filed on behalf of the appellant in HCA No.461/2018 which reads as under :

“It is most respectfully submitted that the Appellant is not infringing any proprietary right of the Respondent No.1 and is only using, either by himself or through his agent(s) (including Even & Mayer International), the trademarks in which he is a co-owner/co-proprietor in view of the Order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Suit No.12 of 2017 which is still in field.

That, therefore, this Appeal may kindly be disposed off in terms of the statement made hereinabove.”

Learned counsel for the appellant in HCA No.461/2018 requests that the said appeal may be disposed of in terms of the above statement. This request has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the ground that the appellants have infringed the proprietary rights of respondent No.1 in respect of registered trademark ‘Parrot’. This assertion has been strongly denied by learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals by submitting that it is in fact the respondent No.1 who has infringed the trademark owned by the appellants and in view of such infringement, the appellants were forced to initiate proceedings against him before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant in HCA No.461/2018 states that the said appellant has filed Suit No.12/2017 at the original side of this Court against the respondent No.1-company and its shareholders wherein an ad-interim order was passed on 04.01.2017 restraining them from interfering in the appellant’s use of the said trademark registered in his name. He submits that since the aforesaid ad-interim order passed in the appellant’s Suit No.12/2017 is still in the field, no restrictions can be imposed upon him as he is using the subject trade mark in his own right as the registered owner thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant in HCA No.460/2018 has also made similar submissions.

Since the application on which the impugned ex-parte ad-interim order has been passed is still pending before the learned single Judge, any observation or finding in the instant appeals may prejudice the case of either of the parties before the learned single Judge. It is stated that the parties herein have not only filed several other cases against each other, but have also obtained ad-interim orders therein against each other which are still in the field. It is also stated that the facts and questions of law involved in all such cases are common. In order to avoid passing of conflicting orders in the said cases, learned counsel for the parties request that a direction be given for early hearing and disposal of the respondent No.1’s CMA No.15632/2018 in his Suit No.2082/2018 as well as all injunction applications pending in other proceedings between the parties within a specified timeframe. They also request that a direction be given to the office to fix all the cases before the learned single Judge on 19.12.2018 when some of the cases are already fixed.

Accordingly, office is directed to fix Suits No. 636/2016, 1299/2016, 2163/2016, 2271/2016, 12/2017, 1826/2017, 2700/2017, 1160/2018 and 2082/2018, as well as JCMs No. 30/2015 and 01/2016 before the learned single Judge on 19.12.2018 when a date shall be fixed for hearing of injunction applications in all the above cases, and the same shall be decided on merits preferably within a period of two (2) months from the said date of hearing after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned counsel for the parties waive notice in all the above mentioned cases for the aforesaid date of hearing, and undertake not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and to ensure that the applications are argued by them on the date(s) fixed by the learned single Judge.

By consent, both these appeals and listed applications are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to the costs.

J U D G E