Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 817
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: M.A. 124/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - The Stillman (Appellant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 817. In this matter between M.A. 124/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - The Stillman (Appellant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: M.A. 124/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 817 PARTIES: The Stillman (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 14-APR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
M.A. No.124 of 2025
Date Order with signature of the Judge Hearing / Priority. 1. For hearing of main case. 2. For hearing of CMA No.6582 of 2025.
14.04.2026
Mr. Muhammad Sohaib Sheikh, Advocate for the Appellant along with Mr. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate. Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Ansari, Advocate for Respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Ms. Saira Shaikh, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 5.
*****
Heard all the learned Advocates for the Parties at length.
2. This Appeal is filed against the refusal to grant an injunctive relief in favour of the Appellant Company.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the Trade Mark No.12207 is current ly in use of the Appellant Company and Respondents No.2 and 5 under the garb of Composite Agreement for Toll Manufacturing and Agency dated 06.09.2017 (at page -305), cannot use, rather misuse, the Trade Mark on the pretext that the Parties to the said Agreement are also Directors in the Appellant Company. Has cited two Judgments reported in (i) 2015 CLD 655 [Sindh] (Muhammad Saleem Warind versus Mazhar and 2 others) and (ii) 2005 CLD 822 [Karachi] (Rizwan Shahid versus Tariq Abdullah].
4. Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Ansari, Advocate, representing the Respondents No.1, 3 and 4 has supported the contention of the Appellant.
Whereas, Ms. Saira Shaikh, Advocate, appearing for Respondents No.2 and 5 has opposed this Appeal by stating that the Partnership
2
Firm-Respondent No.1, viz. M/s. Shamim Akhtar, owned number of Marks relating to the “ Stillman’s” Brand and she has referred to page -399 in support of her arguments.
5. The impugned Order is passed only in respect of Trade Mark No.12207 (at page -67) registered in Class -3 since 09.10. 1950. As per the latest status, the p resent Proprietor is the Appellant Company. When the contesting Respondent is confronted with the last Paragraph of the impugned Order that the Respondents No.2 and 5 are not using the said Trade Mark, she has stated that since Composite Agreement (supra) has expired, therefore, the Respondent No.5 is not using the Trade Mark in question. When the same observation was made in the impugned Order, the injunction should not have been refused but rather granted only to the extent of Trade Mark No.12207, when it is also observed in the impugned Order that the Appellant Company has made out a prima facie case.
6. Consequently, this Appeal is accepted, by setting aside the impugned Order, but only to the extent of Trade Mark No.12207 , for which the injunction is granted in favour of the Appellant till the disposal of the Lis, sub judice before the Tribunal.
7. It is expected that the entire Suit will be decided by the learned Tribunal within three months from today and once the evidence starts, no adjournment should be allowed to any Party.
JUDGE M.Javaid PA