ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

M.A. No.39 of 2018

__________________________________________________________________

Dated:                  Order with signature of Judge(s)

__________________________________________________________________

 

1.         For order on office objection as at “A”

2.         For order on CMA No.6167/2018

3.         For hearing of main case.

4.         For order on CMA No.6168/2018

 

13.08.2018

Mr. Abdur Rehman, advocate for appellant.

_____________

 

1)         Deferred for the time being.

2)         Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

3&4)    Per learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 files this Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in support of the opposition the appellant filed affidavit of Ms. Isabelle Dini, the Trademarks Manager of Norgine Limited, an affiliate of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to letter dated 08th May, 2013 enclosed as annexure “D” at page-121 with Memo of Appeal sent to the respondent No.2 in reference of the Opposition No.1264/2012 wherein it was stated that duplicate and a scanned copy of the duly signed and notarized affidavit-in-evidence of the Opponent under Rule 30(5) of the Trade Marks Rules 2004 is enclosed. Learned counsel has also relied upon Rule 30(5) of the Trade March Rules 2004, which reads as under:-

 

Rule 30(5); Within two months from the receipt of a copy of counter-statement or within such further period as the Registrar may allow, the person opposing the application shall file such evidence by way of statutory declaration or affidavit, as he may consider necessary to adduce in support of his opposition and shall send a copy thereof to the applicant”.

 

Per learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the record already available with the respondent No.2. Issue notice to the respondents for 28.08.2018. Till next date of hearing, impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 shall remain suspended.

 

 

JUDGE