The complainant alleged that the respondent is disseminating false and misleading information and fraudulently using its trademark, which is capable of harming the business interest of the complainant, and amounts to deceptive marketing practices in violation of Section 10 of the Act. Giving its observations on the issue of trade mark, the CCP report stated that it can be concluded that the commission also observes that trade/service mark infringement must be prevented to avoid consumer injury.
Furthermore, their curtailment is necessary to safeguard the overall brand equity of an undertaking as trade/service marks not only affect the perception and goodwill of the product, but also have a significant impact on its sales.
Therefore, in order to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and to make provisions to ensure free and fair competition in the market, intellectual property rights must be protected and Section 10 of the Act must be enforced, in this case particularly through the mandate outlined, the CCP said.
These creative works are also termed as intellectual property of their owners.
However, in order to gain exclusive rights for their use, they have to be registered with the relevant authorities, such as the Intellectual Property Organization (IPO) of Pakistan.
By registering intellectual property such as trade/service mark, intellectual property rights extend monopolistic use of the registered trade/service mark to its owners. Furthermore, owing to its properties, significant efforts have been made across the country, to protect such property rights. Whereas, fraudulent use of these rights constitutes a clear violation of law including Section 10(2) (d) of the Act, which prohibits "fraudulent use of another's trademark, firm name, or product labeling or packaging", the CCP added.
Based on the information available on record, and the submissions made before the CCP, the enquiry officers have reached on the conclusion that the, prima facie, allegation made against the respondent company have not been made out as, the respondent company has created a distinguished trademark, trade dress in term of labeling and packaging, which is different from the complainant's labelling and packaging, so there is no point of confusion between the two graphically different trademarks.
In a thorough comparison of both the trademarks of the complainant and the respondent, it is clearly evident that both of the trademarks are entirely different from each other in respect of color scheme and background, font style and size, shape and overall get-up. It is therefore, recommended that the complaint against M/s New Yorker Pizza may be dismissed in accordance with the law, the CCP enquiry report added.