BEFORE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

TRIBUNAL AT LAHORE

TM Rectification Petition No._________/2023

Haaris Habib Ahmad s/o Habib Ahmad,

Proprietor of Daily Deli, having business office at 9-12 Ground Floor,
Main Plaza, 35-Civic Center, Johar Town,
Lahore.
APPLICANT
VERSES

1. Syed Hasnain Mehdi, Proprietor, SAM International,

having office at 303, Alfalah Building, The Mall, Lahore.

2. The Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, IPO Regional

Office, 11-Shahrah-e-Aiwan-e-Tajarat, Lahore Chamber of Commerce
Building, (LCCI) Lahore.
RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION U/S 73, 80 & 96 OF THE

TRADEMARKS ORDINANCE 2001 READ WITH ALL OTHER
ENABLING PROVISION OF LAW FOR REMOVAL OF THE
REGISTERED TRADEMARK NO. 663469 IN CLASS 43 IN THE
NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.1.

That the Petitioner respectfully submits the following GROUNDS:-

1. That an earlier rectification Petition titled ‘M/s Daily Deli Vs Syed Hasnain
Mehdi etc.’ has been withdrawn 16.9.2023 with the permission to file afresh
rectification application from this Honble Court and a passing off IP suit titled
‘Haaris Habib Ahmad VS Syed Hasnain Mehdi’ has been filed on
15.9.2023 and next date of hearing is fixed on 16.9.2023 for adjudication of
this Hon’ble Court.
2. Since letting the subject trademark stay on the Register is prejudicial to the
rights and interests of the Applicant, therefore, if the mark is NOT revoked,
declared INVALID and rectified, it shall put the applicant in a great
disadvantage. Thus, the applicant, being an interested party and entitled to
file the current application u/s 73(4), 80 (4) and Sec. 96 (1) of the Trade
Mark Ordinance, 2001;
3. It is declared that prior to the filing of this application, a passing off suit was
pending in IP Tribunal, Lahore, concerning the subject trademark {Ref Sec.
73(4) (a) and others}, the subject trademark was registered by

pg. 1
 misrepresentation of the facts as outlined under Sec 14 of the Trade Marks
Ordinance, 2001, its registration was obtained by fraud, therefore it is
required to be taken off the Registrar by virtue of under, inter alia, sections
73(4), .80 (4) and 96 (1) of the Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001.

4. That the Applicant (which expression shall include its predecessors-in-title) is

engaged in business of fast food restaurants, snack bars and cafeterias for
providing foods and drinks of all kinds including cooked foods, fast foods,
snack foods, Chinese foods, fish, fry fish, rice, fresh juices, milk shakes,
fruit chats, ice creams, fresh and dry fruits; bakery products, sweets, meat,
parathas, paratha rolls, shawarma, barbecue, karahi gosht, burgers, pizzaz,
kababs, tikkas; patties, sandwiches, samosas, pakoras, breads, nans, pies,
milk and milk products, sabz chai, tea, non-alcoholic drinks, sauces and
catering for marriage parties and other allied functions ( hereinafter referred
to as ‘the said services’) under the trademark and trade name entitled ‘Daily
Deli Co’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said trademark’) since 2014.
Original representations of the said trademark are enclosed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A & A/2.

5. That the Applicant has developed a well reputed brand name ‘DAILY DELI
CO’ and goodwill all across the country by virtue of its prestigious quality
food, restaurant services and strong organizational establishments operating
efficiently and effectively. With the passage of time, the business under the
suit trademark has been expanded to its numerous outlets across the country
and has become a catalyst to national prosperity by many employees. The
detail of network of branches and sales fast foods point establishes at various
places, a few of them being those situated at the following places:-

1- Restaurant in Johar Town, Mian Plaza, Lahore;

2- Restaurant in DHA, Phase-4, Lahore;
3- Restaurant in Lake City, Lahore;
4- Restaurant in Lahore Cantt- Lahore;
5- Restaurant in Model Town, Lahore;
6- Restaurant in F 6/1, Blue Area, Beverly Centre, Islamabad.
Arrangements are in progress for opening more fast restaurants at other suitable
places throughout the country by the Applicant. Colour prints of all fast food
restaurant, menu and business outlets Google Maps/menu printouts are enclosed
herewith as Annex-B to B/6.
6. That in 2015, soon after the inception of the business idea by Mr. Haaris
Habib being prudent in the protection of the proprietary & intellectual
property rights and commercial interests, in order to retain exclusivity and
secure the goodwill, applied for registration of the suit trademark, vide
registration application No.378875 dated 15-01-2015 before Registrar of
Trade Marks, and further applied applications for registration of the suit
trademark in class 29, 30 & 35 and copyright/artistic work. Copies of the
suit trademark, vide application No.378875 dated 15-01-2015 is attached
herewith as Annex-C and further applications for registration of the suit
trademark and copyright are attached herewith as Annex-C/1 to C/12.
7. That the suit trademark is also the trade name of the Applicant which is
protected u/s 92 of the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001. It is pertinent to
mention here that the business (suit trademark) of the Applicant was
developed into the partnership firm named ‘DAILY DELI’, a Partnership
firm registered on 27-7-2018 as partnership firm registration No.0320 and
pg. 2
 the Applicant became its partner. It has been settled among the partners of
the partnership firm, after registration of the suit trademark in the name of
the Applicant the suit trademark shall be transferred in the name of said
Partnership Firm. A copy of TM-16 dated 31.8.2023 is attached herewith-
Annex-D.
8. That recently the Applicant was approached by Respondent No.1 through a
legal notice dated 08-08-2023 informing that Respondent No.1 has got
registration of bad faith of the suit trademark i.e. ‘DAILY DELI Co’.
(hereinafter referred to as the impugned and counterfeit trademark and that
the Applicant must restrain from the use of the suit trademark in respect of
the said services. After receiving the said legal notice sent by Respondent
No.1, the Applicant approached Respondent No.2 to know the status of his
pending application for registration of the suit trademark and to know about
the reality of the claim made by Respondent No.1. By Respondent No.2 it
came into the knowledge of the Applicant that the application No.378875
for the registration of the suit trademark made by the Applicant before
Respondent No.2 is still pending while Respondent No.1 had also applied
for the registration of the suit trademark, DAILY DELI Co. which is purely
identical with the trademark of the Applicant, through application
No.663469 dated 25-05-2022 which has been registered and registration
certificate No.663469 dated 18.07.2023 (hereinafter called as ‘the impugned
trademark registration’) had been issued by Respondent No.2 to Respondent
No.1. A copy of the legal notice and proof of other registrations of
Respondent No.1 is attached as Annex-E to F.
9. That upon personal inquiry by the Applicant the factum unearthed that
Respondent No.1 is an imposter, a cheater and fraudster who cunningly in a
slyly way hunted out many famous brands i.e. Faiza Beauty Cream, Food
Panda, Deplix (Pvt.) Ltd, Revlon, Out Fitter, Fri Chicks, Fazal Haq, Yummy
36, Bhai Bhai Oil and others many brands which are registered and pending
in the name of Respondent No.1 and some along with his wife, Sam
International and Jordache (Pvt.) Ltd. Respondent No.1 and his wife who are
directors of Jordache (Pvt.) Ltd (Form-A, MOA & AOA of the company is
attached herewith) and where after applied for the trademarks registration in
a clandestine manner, after obtaining the registration of such above hunted
out many famous (estimated to be 150 in number so far) brands/trademarks
through fraud and deceit Respondent No.1 proceeded with blackmailing and
extortion of millions of rupees by bargaining and settlement with the
original owners of the Trademarks under duress and coercion. The
Respondent No.1 is habitually involved in a series of IP litigations and is
also nominated in criminal cases. The matter does not end here the list of the
criminal activities of the respondent goes on and on, and a classic example
of fraud, treachery and deception is evident from the fact that the respondent
even included the bogus businesses into his tax returns which are reflecting
the names of famous brands such like Asmab Brands, Fri Chiks, Ali
Enterprises, AM Enterprises, As Traders, Jordache Enterprises, Mirage
group of companies, Outfitters, Yum Food Festival, SAM international and
Alia Homes, relecting in his Taxpayers Profile Inquiry, printed on
21.08.2023, however there is fortunately no mentioning of Daily Deli Co as
his business, hence shows that the claim of the respondent as bogus and
there exists no business of Respondent No.1 under this same so far. Copies
attached herewith.

pg. 3
9.1 Copies of the slyly way hunted out many famous brands i.e. Faiza Beauty
Cream, Food Panda, Deplix (Pvt.) Ltd, Revlon, Out Fitter, Fri-Chicks, Fazal
Haq, Yummy 36, Bhai Bhai Oil, and others trademarks registrations, FBR
Records, Copies FIRS and Criminal computerised record issued from Punjab
Police of different Police Stations in name of Respondent No.1 are attached
herewith as Annex-F to F/36.
10. That the impugned registration No.663469 of the suit trademark in the
favour of Respondent No.1 is illegal, unlawful, product of fraud and
misrepresentation, and the result of connivance with Respondent No.2 which
is void and ineffective in favour of rights of the plaintiff. The particulars of
fraud of the impugned trademark registration are following:-
a. The Respondent No.1 has neither been carrying out
business using the suit trademark nor he is the
proprietor/owner of any such business, if there is any
record that is absolutely fabricated and fake, on the other
hand the Applicant has running many fast food
restaurants in Pakistan. The detail of network of branches
of fast food and Google map under the suit trademark is
attached herewith.
b. That the Applicant has originated the suit trademark and
developed its goodwill, while Respondent No.1 has
neither originated/created nor established/developed the
suit trademark.
c. That the Applicant is prior user of the suit trademark
since 2014 and is applicant for the registration of suit
trademark since 2015 while Respondent No.1 has no
proof of his use of the suit trademark and he also applied
for the registration of the suit trademark after a long
period of seven years (in 2022) from the Plaintiff’s
earlier application.
d. That the impugned registration of the suit trademark in
the favor of Respondent No.1 is based on mala fide
intention and bad faith in order to deprive the Applicant
from his constitutionally secured IP proprietary right of
the suit trademark, to cause business losses through
unfair competition and to spread confusion and deception
among the general public and customers.
e. That Respondent No.1 is habitual offender, blackmailer,
having criminal record and involved in a number of
malicious prosecutions against many famous trademarks
of the country.
f. That the impugned registration of suit trademark in favor
of Respondent No.1 has been carried out by Respondent
No.2 in violation of Section 14 of The Trade Marks
Ordinance, 2001 because the impugned registration
causes deception and confusion and it is disentitled to be
protected in the court of law.
g. That the impugned registration of suit trademark in favor
of Respondent No.1 has been issued/registered by
Respondent No.2 in the violation of Section 17 of The
pg. 4
 Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 because the impugned
registration is identical with the earlier applied trademark
of the Applicant which is to be registered for the same
food services.
h. That the impugned registration of suit trademark in favor
of Respondent No.1 has been issued/registered by
Respondent No.2 in the violation of Sections 27 of The
Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 because Respondent No.2
was liable to carry out a search for the identical or similar
earlier applied trademarks before granting the impugned
registration and was bound to issue notice to the earlier
applied trademark proprietors.
i. That the original proprietor/owner, creator and prior user
of the suit trademark is the Applicant, while Respondent
No.2 has neither purchased the suit trademark nor got the
consent by the Applicant for the registration of the suit
trademark in his favour in respect of the food services.
11. That the said unlawful acts of Respondent No.1 constitute gross passing off
and/or infringement of the earlier Applicant’s trademark, ‘Daily Deli Co.’
which are causing irreparable loss to the income, reputation and goodwill of
the Applicant besides deception and confusion being caused to the unwary
customers of the Applicant in the market, who are likely to believe that the
said services provided for general public by Respondent No.1 is provided by
the plaintiff. The Respondent No.1 has done so and is doing so deliberately
and with malafide intention to deceive the public and blackmailing the
Applicant on the basis of impugned registration.
12. That in the light of the above stated facts, it is evident that the trade name as
well as the trademark titled Daily Deli Co is exclusively associated with the
Applicant, therefore any unauthorized use of Daily Deli Co independently or
in conjunction with any other mark, in respect of the similar food services
and food products by any other person of business absolutely amounts to
infringement of the vested rights of the Applicant and tantamount to
Passing-Off, as well as Unfair Competition and is actionable under the
purview of common law, while the Superior Courts of the Country have
repeatedly enunciated it as a trite principle and any departure therefrom
amounts to engulfing the proprietary rights of the citizens. The Article 18 of
the Constitution of Pakistan provides that every citizen shall have the right
to conduct any lawful trade or business. The acts of distributing false or
misleading information that is capable of harming the business interests of
another undertaking and fraudulent use of another’s trademark, firm name,
or product labelling or packaging, which constitute deceptive marketing
practices are in themselves wrongful acts and the common law actions of
‘injurious falsehood’ and ‘passing-off’ are the well-known remedies for
these wrongs.
13. That Respondent No.1 is not prior user of the trade mark titled ‘Daily Deli
Co’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned trade mark)’as falsely claimed
by Respondent No.1. Moreover the said trade mark is also the trade name of
the Applicant, which is protected under the Ordinance, and Respondent No.1
has no right to use the same.
14. That it is clearly beyond any doubt that Respondent No.1 adopted the
impugned trade mark, ‘Daily Deli Co’ knowing fully well that by using the
pg. 5
 said trade mark belonging to the Applicant, Respondent No.1 would be able
to make quick profits by passing off his goods as and for the goods of the
Applicant and the impugned trade mark is identical and deceptively similar
with the Applicant’s well known earlier trade mark, ‘Daily Deli Co’ which
has acquired handsome reputation in favour of the Applicant and because of
such reputation, the use of impugned trade mark by Respondent No.1 would
cause dilution or would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
15. That by reason of the prior use of the said trade mark/name, Respondent
No.1 legally and factually cannot claim to be the proprietor of the trade mark
of the Applicant, and any claim by Respondent No.1 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. It is an irony that respondent No.2 instead of being a facilitator
and protector/guardian of the businesses is acting against the interest of the
business community by leveraging fraud and misrepresentation by means of
allowing bogus applications to pass the scrutiny stage even. The evil should
be nipped in the bud, instead of being allowed to become an atrocious
nightmare for the business enterprises.
16. That Respondent No.1 is infringing/passing off, marketing and selling the
said goods as for the goods of the Applicant under the offending Trade Mark
Registration using trade mark, ‘Daily Deli Co’ (hereinafter referred to as
‘the offending trade mark’) and also Passing off his goods as and for the
goods of the Applicant, and are also damaging the goodwill and reputation
of the Applicant’s business by using the offending trade mark on regular
basis and due to which the Applicant is suffering irreparable loss and injury
to his goodwill, reputation and loss to business of the Applicant
continuously.
17. That the Applicant approached Respondent No.1 and requested him not to use
and sale the said goods under the offending trade mark but he refused to
accept the genuine request of the Applicant, hence the Applicant left no
choice but to file rectification application/petition and revoke the said
impugned trade mark registration from IP Tribunal, Lahore, hence the instant
rectification application is filed by the Applicant in this Hon’ble Tribunal/Court.
18. That the Applicant has suffered and will continue to suffer grave and
irreparable loss and injury by reason of the wrongful acts of Respondent No.1
by illegal use of the Applicant's trade mark.
19. That the offending/impugned trade mark, ‘Daily Deli Co’ was registered by
the Registrar of Trade Marks on the basis of evidence or representations that
were false in material particulars, and without giving any notice to the
Applicant, who actually created and is prior user of the said trade mark. Hence
the registration of the offending/impugned trade mark was obtained by fraud
and misrepresentation on the basis of fake statements of Respondent No.1,
just to harass and blackmail the Applicant. Therefore, the offending trade
mark is liable to be taken off the Register under Section 73(1)(a) of the Trade
Marks Ordinance 2001. That the offending/impugned trade mark does not
fulfil the requirements the Section 73(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
20. That the registration of the offending/impugned trade mark was secured by
Respondent No.1 in bad faith and by fraud, and with the sole object of making
wrongful gain out of the goodwill and reputation of the Applicant’s earlier
trade mark/name relating to the same goods of the same description for which
the said trade mark is used by and is applied in the name of the Applicant.

pg. 6
21. That the registration of the offending/impugned trade mark is also liable to be
declared invalid on the ground that there is an earlier trade mark belonging to
the Applicant, and the Applicant being prior proprietor of the earlier trade
name or other earlier rights have not been consented by the Applicant.
22. That the entry of the offending/impugned trade mark in the Register was made
without sufficient cause and it is an entry wrongly remaining in the Register,
and the Applicant has sufficient interest in the trade mark being its prior user
and proprietor. The said offending/impugned registered mark, if allowed to be
remained on the Register and used, is likely to deceive the customers and
general public or cause confusion in their minds as to the origin of the said
goods.
23. That the use of the offending/impugned trade mark by Respondent No.1 is
likely to mislead, deceive and cause confusion in the minds of the general
public as to the origin of the said services and in fact it is indistinguishable
from the Applicant’s earlier used trade mark in Pakistan. The registration of
the offending/impugned trade mark was obtained without sufficient cause, in
bad faith and by fraud, and with the sole object of making wrongful gains out
of the goodwill and reputation of the Applicant’s earlier introduced and used
trademark relating to the same food services for which the
offending/impugned trade mark is registered, hence it is liable to be
expunged/rectified from the Register.
24. That the very adoption of the applied mark by Respondent No.1, is dishonest
and mala fide, and the registration was secured with ulterior motives and in
bad faith. Although a wide field was open to Respondent No.1 to adopt any
distinctive trademark different from the earlier well-known trade mark
belonging to the Applicant, yet he opted to adopt the impugned trademark
dishonestly. As such the entry of the impugned trademark was made in the
Register without sufficient cause and it is an entry wrongly remaining in the
Register.
25. That if the impugned trade mark is allowed to remain in the Register and is
used by Respondent No.1 as such, the chances of deception and confusion as
to trade origin or trade connection are on the high side. Hence the impugned
mark ought to be expunged/rectified from the Register so as to save the
general public from being deceived or confused, even otherwise the said trade
mark is also the Applicant’s trade name, which enjoys protection under the
mandatory provisions of section 92 of the Ordinance, hence the impugned
trademark of Respondent No.1 is liable to be expunged from the Register.

26. That the registration of the impugned trade mark is also liable to be declared
invalid on the ground that there is an earlier trade mark belonging to the
Applicant in relation to which the condition set out in sub-section (4) of
section 17 is satisfied, and the Applicant being proprietor of the earlier trade
mark or other earlier rights has not consented to the registration of the
impugned trade mark.
27. That the entry of the impugned trade mark in the Register was made without
sufficient cause and it is an entry wrongly remaining in the Register, and the
Applicant has sufficient interest in the trade mark being its prior user and
proprietor. The said registered mark, if allowed to be remained on the Register

pg. 7
 and used, is likely to deceive the general public or cause confusion in their
minds in order to cash the good will of this institution.
28. That if the impugned trade mark is allowed to remain on the Register and used
by Respondent No.1, it is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst
the customers and general public, and it will enable Respondent No.1 and
others to pass off the said Respondent’s goods as and for the genuine goods of
the Applicant. The use of The Impugned Registered Trade mark by
Respondent No.1 is liable to be prevented by virtue of law; in particular the
law of passing off and infringement which protects the Applicant’s said trade
mark used in the course of trade for the last many years. \
29. That the impugned trade mark is also liable to be declared invalid on the
ground that it was registered in breach of sections 14 & 17 of the Ordinance or
other provisions thereof.
30. That the registration of the impugned trade mark is also liable to be declared
invalid on the ground that there is an earlier trademark belonging to the
Applicant in relation to the same goods for which the Respondent’s trade
mark has been registered, and the Applicant being proprietor of the earlier
trade mark or other earlier rights, has not consented to the registration.
31. That the entry of The Impugned Trade Mark in the Register was made without
sufficient cause, and it is an entry wrongly remaining in the Register, and the
Applicant has sufficient interest in the trade mark being its prior proprietor
and user. The said registered mark, if allowed to be remained on the Register
and used, is likely to deceive the public or cause confusion in their minds as to
the origin of the services.
32. That the offending/impugned trade mark is identical and deceptively similar
with the Applicant’s earlier introduced and used trade mark as to be likely to
mislead, deceive and cause confusion in the minds of the customers and
general public as to the origin of the said goods and in fact it is
indistinguishable from the Applicant’s earlier trade mark in Pakistan. The
registration of the impugned trade mark was obtained without sufficient cause,
by fraud and in bad faith, hence it is liable to be expunged/rectified from the
Register.
33. That Respondent No.1 had secured registration of the impugned trade mark
with the intention of trading unfairly on the Applicant's goodwill and
reputation, and with a view to deceive the purchasers into believing that the
said goods provided under The Impugned Trade Mark registration emanate
from the Applicant.

34. That if the offending/impugned trade mark is allowed to remain in the

Register of the Registrar of Trademarks and allowed to be used by
Respondent No.1, the chances of deception and confusion as to trade
origin or trade connection are on the high side Hence offending/impugned
mark ought to be expunged/rectified from the Register so as to save the public
from being deceived or confused.
35. That the cause of action accrued in favour of the Applicant and against
Respondent No.1 initially, when it come to the knowledge of the Applicant
that Respondent No.2 issued the impugned registration certificate in the favor
of Respondent No.1; secondly, when Respondent No.1 sent legal notice dated
08-08-2023 to the Applicant; and lastly, when Respondent No.2 denied to
cancel, revoke and declare the impugned registration invalid one month ago
which is continuing one.
pg. 8
36. That the cause of action has arisen at Lahore where the business is being
carried on by both the parties, therefore this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to
hear and decide the instant case.
37. That for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and
requisite court fee has been affixed on the application.
38. That in the circumstances of this case and for the reasons stated here-in-above
and additional grounds/reasons to be submitted at the time of hearing, the
discretion vested in the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to be exercised against
Respondent No.1 by revoking, rectifying/expunging entry of the impugned
trademark from the Register and/or declaring registration thereof as invalid.

PRAYER:
Under the circumstances, the Applicant respectfully prays that the
rectification application may kindly be allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, for
the sake of justice, equity, fair play and purity of the Trade marks Register,
the entry of the impugned trademark registration under trademark No.
663469 in class 43 be declared as invalid and/or revoked and rectified as per
the provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001;
It is further prayed that the entry of impugned trademark No.663469 in
class 43 in the Register in the name of Respondent No.1 be expunged, revoked
or rectified from the Register and declared as invalid;
It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition the
respondent No.1 may kindly be restrained from using the impugned and
counterfeit trademark vide registration No.663469 in class 43 against the
interest of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore the
operation of the impugned registration No.663469 in class 43 be suspended till
the final decision of the main petition.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may
also be granted to the Applicant.

CH FASI UZ ZAMAN BASIT ABDUL LATIF

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT, ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
SIDDIQUE LAW ASSOCIATES,
50-LOWER MALL, LAHORE,
APPLICANT BY DULY AUTHORISED

VERIFICARTION:
Verified on oath at Lahore on 16th day of September 2023, that the
contents of paragraphs No.1 to 34 are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge and those of paragraphs No.35 to 38 are correct the best of our belief.

Applicant/DEPONENT

pg. 9
 IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

INRE:

TM Rectification Petition No._________/2023

Haaris Habib Ahmad v/s. Syed Husnian Mehdi Etc.

(APPLICATION U/S 73, 80 & 96 OF THE TRADEMARKS

ORDINANCE 2001 ETC..)

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 OF THE CPC FOR THE GRANT OF INTERIM
INJUNCTION.
Respectfully Sheweth:
1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying suit in this Hon'ble Court, which
has not yet been fixed for hearing. The contents of the main plaint may kindly be
read and treated as integral part of this application.
2. That the petitioner has made out a good prima facie case and there is every
likelihood of its success.
3. That if the stay as prayed for is not granted, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable
loss and injury of worst magnitude.
4. That due to the said illegal act of Respondents No.1, the business of the petitioner
is undergoing a huge and irreparable loss.
5. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner.
PRAYER:-
Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that Respondent No.1 may kindly be
restrained from using, marketing, advertising and providing the foods
services under the imitated and/or offending/counterfeit trademark titled
‘Daily Deli Co.; and also restrained from assigning/alienating the imitated
and/or offending/counterfeit trademark, Daily Deli Co. to any other person,
and also restrained from launching same or any similar business, and entering
into any partnership or engage in any other business activity on the basis of
the impugned registration of the suit trade mark titled ‘Daily Deli Co’ or any
other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the suit trademark of the
Petitioner, ‘Daily Deli Co’; in any manner whatsoever;
It is further prayed that the operation of the impugned registration may also be
suspended during the pendency of the main petition.
It is further prayed that an ad-interim injunction in the above terms may kindly be granted
in favour of the petitioner against the respondents till the final decision of this petition.
Dated 16th day of Sep. 2023

Applicant

Through

pg. 10
Chaudhree Fasih-uz-Zaman Basit, Abdul Latif Rana, Syed Farhan Ali &
Mian Aqib Safdar Advocates, Siddique Law Associates, 50-Lower Mall, Lahore.

IN THE COURT OF PRESIDING OFFICER INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

INRE: IP CIVIL SUIT NO. ______________/2023

Haaris Habib Ahmad vs. Syed Husnian Mehdi etc.

(APPLICATION U/S 73, 80 & 96 OF THE TRADEMARKS

ORDINANCE 2001 FOR REMOVAL OF THE REGISTERED
TRADEMARK NO. 663469 IN CLASS 43 ETC..)

(Application Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2

and Section 151 CPC)

AFFIDAVIT OF Harris Habib Ahmad S/o Habib Ahmad R/o 9-

12 Ground Floor, Main Plaza, 35 Civic Center,
Johar Town, Lahore.

I above mentioned named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under that the contents of the accompanying application are correct and
true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed
therefrom.

Deponent

VERIFICATION
Verified on Oath at Lahore on this 16th day of September, 2023 that the
contents of the above affidavit are correct and true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Deponent

pg. 11