KARACHI: Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights (IRP) Enforcement South approached the Sindh High Court (SHC) seeking stay order against release of consignment of counterfeit empty plastic shampoo bottles and caps of well-known registered trademarks Sunsilk, Pantene, Dove and Head & Shoulder.
During the hearing of case on 30.1.2019, counsel for the petitioner stated in his constitutional petition that M/s Al-Syed Electronics imported counterfeit empty plastic shampoo bottles and caps of well-known registered trademarks Sunsilk, Pantene, Dove and Head & Shoulder dated 22/05/2018. Bottles and caps have been imported along with matching stickers showing registered trademarks, copyrighted artwork and corporate marketing details of M/s Unilever Pakistan and M/s Procter and Gamble Pakistan.
He submitted that the appellant received intellectual property rights (IRP) enforcement action in terms of rule 680 (1) from the attorneys of M/s Unilever Pakistan and M/s Procter & Gamble Pakistan against counterfeit goods of M/s Al-Syed Electronics.
Counsel further argued that notices were issued to M/s Al-Syed Electronics and confronted with the claim of rights holders who failed to justify his import, therefore, imported goods were seized and matter was sent for adjudication. On seizing of goods, M/s Al-Syed Electronics moved appeal which was allowed vide order-in-appeal no 1692/2018 under utter disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
He argued that petitioner has filed appeal before the customs appellate tribunal Karachi along with stay application which are still pending and appellate tribunal has failed to appreciate that in protection of trademark the underlying objective is to see if consumer would be deceived by the use of goods and relate those products to someone, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the consumers would presume that it is Head & Shoulder, Dove, etc. products by looking at bottle design.
Citing Secretary Law, Customs Appellate Tribunal and M/s Al-Syed Electronics as respondents, petitioner pleaded the court may direct the respondents to decide the appeal including stay application of the petitioner and in the meanwhile to restrain the respondents from clearing goods during pendency of appeal.
