1

FORM TM-5
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION O F A
T R A D E M A R K U N D E R S E C T I O N 2 8 , R U L E 3 0 ( 1 ) AND OTHER
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW.

In the matter of opposition No.-----------/2024 to application No. 698258 in Class 05

In the name of Zia-ur-Rehman, Trading as Zia-ul-Rehman Cosmetics, Sole
Proprietor, Post Office Shabqadar, Malook Koroona, Charsadda
APPLICANT

BY
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and RAHEELA AQDAS,
Partners/Trading as Hinza Cosmetics, 536, Zeenat Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore.
OPPONENT
We, MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and RAHEELA AQDAS, Partners/Trading as Hinza
Cosmetics, 536, Zeenat Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Opponent’) hereby give notice of our intention to oppose the registration of the
trademark, advertised under Application No. 698258 in class 05 in the Trade Marks
Journal No.872 at Page No.2645.

THE GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION ARE AS UNDER :-

1. That the Opponent is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale
of ‘medicated cosmetics & skincare products (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said
goods’) under the trademark/name titled ‘Hinza’ (Hereinafter referred to as 'the
trademark') under the trade name, Hinza Cosmetics since 2018, before adopting
the said trademark by the Opponent carried out thorough search in the market to
ensure that no other party was using the same or any similar trade mark in respect
of the said goods, and since then the said trade mark had been in continuous,
extensive and exclusive use of the Opponent.

2. That the said trademark, ‘HINZA’ is already registered in class 03 vide registration
No.-------------- and one application is pending in class and in calss 05 in Trade
Marks Registry in the name of the Opponent, amongst others, in respect of the said
goods, The label design and artistic work/monogram of the said trade mark entitled
‘Hinza’ is also pending registration in the name of the Opponent with the Registrar
of Copyrights, Karachi.

3. That the Opponent has been extensively promoting its said goods bearing the trade
mark entitle ‘Hinza’ through various media, and the said trademark has been used
by the Opponent continuously and extensively in respect of the said goods since
long, whereas the trade mark/house mark ‘Hinza’ has been used by the Opponent
for the last many years and is duly registered in the name of the Opponent. By
reason of the long and extensive use and superior quality of the products sold by
the Opponent under the said trade mark, it has acquired tremendous reputation and
goodwill in favour of the Opponent has become associated with the Opponent.

5. That the products sold under the said trademark are made under strict quality
control, thus the customers receive the best quality products, which they rely upon.
As a consequence, the Opponent’s products under the said trade mark command a
valuable reputation and expectancy of the very best quality goods by the
customers. In fact the said trademark has become synonymous of the very best
quality products by the Opponent.
 2

6. That the Applicant is not undisputedly the prior user of the trade mark, ‘Hinza’
and the words 'Hinza' being prominent part of the trade name of the Opponent is
protected under the law, and none else is entitled to use the same as trade mark or
part of a trade mark.

7. That by reason of the long and extensive use and superior quality of the products
sold by the Opponent under the said trade mark, it has acquired tremendous
reputation and goodwill in favour of the Opponent and has become solely
associated with the Opponent and it connotes and denotes the goods of the
Opponent only.

8. That the products sold under the said trademark are made under strict quality
control and keeping in view the highest standards of quality, thus the customers
receive the best quality products, which they have learnt to, rely upon. As a
consequence, the goods that bear the said trademark command a valuable
reputation and expectancy of the very best quality goods by the customers.
In fact the said trademark has become synonymous of the very best quality
products that one could buy in the market.

9. Thus the public and the traders in Pakistan identify, recognize and associate the
said trademark with the products originating from the Opponent only, and the said
trademark stand as a symbol of quality, dependability and reliability of the
products upon which they are used and enjoy tremendous reputation and goodwill
in favour of the Opponent.

10. That it is clearly beyond any doubt that the Applicant adopted the applied trade
mark knowing fully well that by using the said trade mark, the Applicant would be
able to make quick profits by passing off his goods as and for the goods of the
Opponent. and the Applicant’s mark is identical with the Opponent’s well known
trade mark which has acquired handsome reputation in favour of the Opponent and
because of such reputation, the use of the Applicant’s mark would cause dilution or
would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

11. That Zia-ur-Rehman, a Pakistani National, Proprietor, Trading as Zia-Ur-

Rehman Cosmetics, Located at Post Office Shabqadar, Malook Koroona,
Charsadda, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) vide application No.
698258 in class 05 seeks to register the trademark, ‘Hinza’ which is identical
visually and phonetically with the Opponent’s earlier said registered
trademark ‘Hinza’ and copyright of the Opponent. The applied mark, if allowed
to be registered and used, is likely to deceive the purchasers or cause confusion in
their minds as to the origin of the goods.

12. That it is clearly beyond any doubt that the Applicant adopted and applied for
registration of the mark ‘Hinza’ knowing fully well that by using the said trade
mark, the Applicant would be able to make quick profits by passing off his goods
as and for the goods of the Opponent.

13. That the Applicant’s mark is identical and similar with the Opponent’s well known
trade mark ‘Hinza’ which has acquired handsome reputation in favour of the
Opponent and because of such reputation, the use of the Applicant’s mark would
cause dilution or would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

14. That confusion and deception is unlikely to be avoided, as such the proposed use of
the applied mark by the Applicant will inevitably give rise to confusion and
deception as to the source of origin of the goods, and in view of the wide
 3

awareness of the Opponent’s mark, the goods of the Applicant under the applied
trade mark are likely to be taken as emanating from the Opponent.

15. That by reason of the prior use and prior registration of the said trade mark by the
Opponent throughout Pakistan, the applied mark is not adapted to distinguish the
goods of the Applicant, and as such it ought to be refused registration.

16. That the trademark sought to be registered by the Applicant by reason of its being
likely to deceive or to cause confusion is objectionable under the law. Moreover
the Applicant’s goods under the applied mark would be passed off as and for the
goods of the Opponent and as such it would be disentitled to protection in a High
Court or Distt. Court.

17. That the applied mark is identical and similarity to the Opponent’s well know
trademark and copyright Hinza, as such its use by the Applicant is likely to
deceive or cause confusion and is barred from registration.

18. That the Applicant legally and factually cannot claim to be the proprietor of the
applied mark, which is identical with the said trade mark of the Opponent, and any
claim by the Applicant to its proprietorship is misappropriate, invalid and
dishonest and claim in bad faith calculated to deceive the Registrar. As such the
applied mark ought to be refused registration.

19. That the Opponent’s mark must have been known to the Applicant when he
applied to register his trade mark, and it is thus believed that Applicant had "prior
knowledge" of the Opponent’s said well know trade mark, Hinza. Therefore the
Applicant is in any case disqualified from applying for the registration of the
applied mark, which is identical with the Opponent’s earlier Wellknow trade mark.

20. That the Applicant by encroaching upon the well-known trade mark belonging to
the Opponent has violated the established norms of business ethics and has
unveiled his mala fide intention, which may be taken into account by the Hon’ble
Tribunal.

21. That if the said trade mark is allowed to be registered and used by the Applicant, it
is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the traders and the purchasers,
and it will enable the Applicant and others to pass off the Applicant's inferior
quality goods as the genuine goods of the Opponent. The use of the applied mark
by the Applicant is liable to be prevented by virtue of law, in particular the law of
passing off and infringement which protects the Opponent’s said trade mark used
in the course of trade.

22. That the Applicant has not used the said trade mark in respect of the said goods
prior to or after the date of application, and any claim to user, which the Applicant
might have made or may hereafter make, would be false and/or dishonest, and is
denied by the Opponent. In any case any use, if claimed by the Applicant, would
be dishonest and mala fide, and the Applicant is not entitled to any benefit thereof
under the law.

23. That the Applicant, at the time of making application for registration of the applied
mark, had full knowledge that the said trade mark belonged to the Opponent and
that the same is being used by the Opponent since long. It is as such evident that
the Applicant intends to obtain registration of the said trade mark belonging to the
Opponent, hence the Applicant has not come forward with clean hands, and the
Applicant is not bona fide proprietor or user of the applied mark as falsely claimed
 4

and is not entitled to obtain registration thereof under the law because the
Opponent is the First creator and adopter of the said trade mark.

24. That the applied mark does not satisfy the requirements of the law as to
registrability and it is not adapted to distinguish the goods of the Applicant. In fact
the applied mark is not capable of distinguishing the goods of the Applicant from
those of the Opponent, as such it ought to be refused registration.

25. That the proposed registration of the applied mark, which is identical with the
Opponent’s earlier trade mark, would be contrary to law, particularly sections
14,17, 22, 29 and 92 of the Ordinance.

26. That the applied mark ought to be refused registration in the interest of the purity
of the Register and in public interest in order to save the purchasers from being
deceived or confused as to the origin of the goods.

27. It is submitted that in view of the facts of this case and for the reasons mentioned
herein above, the discretion vested in the Hon'ble Tribunal under the law of the Act
ought to be exercised against the Applicant by refusing registration of application
No. 698258 in class 05.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon`ble Tribunal in the interest
of justice may kindly refuse the registration of application No. 698258 in class 05,
allow this opposition with costs in favour of the Opponent, and award any other
relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Our address for service in connection with these proceedings is:-
SIDDIQUE LAW ASSOCIATES,
Abdul Latif Advocate, 50-Lower Mall, Lahore. Mob: 0321-9410368.

Dated, this 24th day of January, 2024

O P P O N E N T
BY DULY AUTHORISED ATTORNEY
Siddique Law Associates

THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS,

THE TRADE MARKS REGISTRY,
KARACHI.