974 CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS [Vol.

VII
2008] C

2008 C L D 974
To ]
[Karachi] due to nar
Before Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, J supplied ir
section 8.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (PAKISTAN) LTD. —Appellant
Seci
versus section 8 c
the registr
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS.and emphasis 1
another—Respondents , classeis, as
M.A. No. 328 of 2003, decided on 12th November, 2007. protect pul
of their o
(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940f- “same, goo
in section
—Ss.8 & 10 Prohibition of registration of certain matters and
[p. 979] F
identical and similar trade marks—Trade name applied by both
the parties was the same but the goods manufactured by them A t
were absolutely different to each other; one party had applied for through o
bleaching preparations and other substances, while the other tp. 979] G
had applied forfood products etc.-~Prtnciples.
The
Section 8 of Trade Marks Act, 1940, specifies the make. knoi
reason when registration of certain matters is prohibited that the s£
Ip. 978] A. . company,
description
Section 8 has been enacted -with the purpose that if “trade mar
goods manufactured by both parties are examined apparently proposed t
they are different to each other, Goods manufactured by one indicating
party are used for laundry purpose, whereas the goods supplied trade betw
by the other mostly are edible Items. There is no apprehension either: as
that it will create any confusion or deception in the mind of whether w
general public or purchasers, [p. 978] B
person. Th
Section 8(a) of the Act is designed for the protection of goods to \
the public against deception or confusion and must, therefore, their con:
be given a wide scope and should not be limited to any kind of business
confusion such as arising by reason of any trade connection another o
between the competing goods. Once it is established on the company:
evidence that deception or confusion is probable, the Registrar goods in c
is bound to prohibit registration of the proposed trade mark in expected
the public interest, [p. 978] C the natu
Ip, 979] fl
In the present case the goods were absolutely of different
description and classes and it was hard to believe that it would W.
create an impression in the mind of general public that the but were
goods produced by each of the parties had some connection and by n
with each other, [p. 979] D Trade Mz
remandec
CLD case .in tt
CLD