





































Microsoft Word - ELP-V2N1-p113


Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

113 
 

Original Paper 

Administrative Procedure of Trademark Enforcement in 

Pakistan: A Comparative Analysis with Malaysia and USA 

Sohaib Mukhtar1*, Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol2 & Sufian Jusoh2 
1 Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia 
2 Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, 

Malaysia 
* Sohaib Mukhtar, E-mail: sohaibmukhtar@gmail.com 

 

Received: May 7, 2019        Accepted: May 14, 2019        Online Published: May 30, 2019 

doi:10.22158/elp.v2n1p113              URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v2n1p113 

 

Abstract 

Trademark is one of the component of Intellectual Property (IP). It is a mark, name, sign, smell or a 

sound which distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking from goods and services of other 

undertakings. It is required to be distinctive and non-descriptive. It losses its distinctiveness when 

registered owner of trademark does not take prompt action against its infringement. Trademark 

enforcement procedures including administrative procedure must be expedient, adequate, fair, 

equitable, and must not be complicated, costly and time consuming. Administrative procedure starts 

when application for trademark registration is opposed by the registered trademark owner before the 

concerned administrative authority. Trademark registration authorities are: (i) Trademark Registry 

under Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO-Pakistan) in Pakistan, (ii) Intellectual 

Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) in Malaysia, and (iii) United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (USPTO) in United States of America (USA). The registered owner of trademark may apply 

before the concerned administrative authority against the registration of identical trademark by 

adopting administrative procedure of trademark enforcement. This study is qualitative method of 

research a comparative analysis of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, 

Malaysia and USA. After a comparative analysis of administrative procedure of trademark 

enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA, it is found that there are only three IP Tribunals in 

Pakistan and there is a need of more IP Tribunals which is required to give its decision within 90 days 

resultantly saves time and money of the people. It is also found that there is Trademark Trial and 

Appeal Board at USPTO, where appeal against decision of the Registrar may be filed by the aggrieved 

party thus a similar kind of body is required to be established at Trademark Registry in Pakistan. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

114 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Furthermore, IP experts should be hired at IP Tribunal and at Trademark Registry for smooth 

implementation of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan. 

Keywords 

intellectual property, trademark, intellectual property organization of Pakistan, intellectual property 

corporation of Malaysia, united states patent and trademark office 

 

1. Introduction 

Administrative procedure of trademark enforcement is very important procedure for effective 

enforcement of trademark, therefore it is required to be expedient, adequate, equitable, and must not be 

complicated, costly and time consuming. Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 

Rights (TRIPS Agreement) of World Trade Organization (WTO) is the first International Treaty which 

contains exhaustive enforcement provisions of IP in member countries of WTO from articles 41 to 61. 

Preamble of TRIPS Agreement states that member states have recognized assurance of measures and 

procedures for effective enforcement of IP rights, which should not become hurdle in legitimate trade. 

Member states have also recognized that there is a need of new rules and disciplines for effective and 

appropriate enforcement of trade related IP rights and there is also a need for effective and appropriate 

procedure for settlement of disputes between contracting states and there is a need of a model to 

prevent disputes between contracting states. There is also a need to reduce tensions between 

contracting states by adopting expeditious procedures and therefore member states are required to give 

effect to provisions of TRIPS Agreement into their domestic laws of state and member states may 

adopt any suitable method for doing so. 

Article 41 of TRIPS Agreement states that enforcement procedure of IP in member countries of WTO 

should not be complicated, costly and time consuming, at least a judicial review must be available to 

aggrieved party on final administrative decision. TRIPS Agreement does not affect the capacity of 

enforcement of member states in their general domestic laws as such it is not obligatory upon member 

states to deal separately with enforcement of general domestic law and enforcement of TRIPS 

Agreement by redistributing resources for enforcement. 

The registered owner of trademark may apply before the concerned administrative authority against the 

registration of identical trademark by adopting administrative procedure of trademark enforcement. 

There is an expert Examiner in Charge of registration at USPTO in USA, which is required to examine 

application of registration and decision of Examiner in Charge of registration may be challenged before 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. There are not many experts Examiner in Charge of registration 

neither there is Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Pakistan thus it is highly recommended that 

experts Examiner in Charge of registration should be appointed and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

should be established at Trademark Registry in Pakistan. 

After a comparative analysis of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, 

Malaysia and USA, it is found that there are only three IP Tribunals in Pakistan and there is a need of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

115 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

more IP Tribunals in Pakistan which is required to give its decision within 90 days resultantly saves 

time and money of the people. It is therefore recommended that more IP tribunals should be established 

for smooth implementation of administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan. 

 

2. Literature Review 

TRIPS Agreement contains exhaustive provisions on enforcement of trademark law including civil 

procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, provisional and border measures in member 

states of WTO. TRIPS Agreement states about administrative procedure of trademark enforcement that 

trademark may be invalidated by administrative authority of member state if it is consisted of wine 

spirit wrongly indicated to the place which is not its origin by ensuring equitable treatment to producers 

and not misleading the consumer. Member states are required to apply administrative provisions as per 

their legislative requirements (Articles 22, 23 & 49, TRIPS Agreement). 

Duncan Matthews stated that though TRIPS Agreement implemented in member countries of WTO but 

has not been effectively enforced in member states and there is a sharp difference between adoption of 

TRIPS Agreement and its enforcement. Effective enforcement of TRIPS Agreement may take years to 

achieve. Member countries should improve their civil and administrative procedures, provisional and 

border measures and criminal procedure of IP enforcement including trademark. TRIPS Agreement 

challenges capacity of developing countries in IP enforcement. Member states are required to follow 

Part III of TRIPS Agreement to improve enforcement procedures of IP rights in member countries 

(Matthews, 2003). 

Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah emphasized on effective enforcement system 

of IP rights including trademark rights in Pakistan and added that counterfeiting of trademark and 

copyright piracy are very important factors to reduce trade and investment in the country, it damages 

economy, hurts consumer and spoils image of country. IP laws including trademark laws of Pakistan 

must be amended under the light of relevant International Treaties and IP special courts should be 

established in Pakistan to deal with IP issues effectively (Jaan, 2010). 

Justice Bernice Bouie Donald stated that enforcement of IP right in Pakistan is an issue thus Pakistan 

should learn from other countries, e.g., USA, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore in the field of IP 

enforcement to settle issues of IP enforcement in Pakistan. She quoted an example of Singapore and 

stated that piracy was spread in Singapore and it was a common practice and no infringement 

proceedings was deterrent in the way of infringers and counterfeiters. Thereafter, the Government of 

Singapore took an initiative in IP field and managed to become leader in technological advancement by 

restructuring IP laws of Singapore. 

She further stated that traders and investors do not come to a country where IP legislation is weak as it 

does not give them confidence for full protection of their investment and there is a severe chance of 

loss of capital rather than earning profits. Strengthening IP laws may bring investment in Pakistan and 

it enhances confidence of traders and investors to invest in Pakistan because there are minimum 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

116 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

chances of violations of their IP rights and it helps structuring and economic building of Pakistan. 

She further stated that a country whose IP laws and procedures including trademark and its 

enforcement procedures are adequate to protect rights of trademark owner and other IP rights. Trade 

and investment come to that country from across the globe without any fair of injustice because of the 

perfect system of IP enforcement including trademark as per relevant International Conventions and 

other relevant bilateral treaties between sovereign states (Donald, 2013). 

Hamid Maker stated in an article in the Nation that IPO-Pakistan is public organization under 

administration of the Government of Pakistan. The vision of IPO-Pakistan is to put Pakistan forward in 

IP enforcement and to portray good image of Pakistan as responsible country in the world with respect 

to enforcement of IP rights by promoting and protecting IP rights in Pakistan. The performance and 

activities of IPO-Pakistan are not up to the mark for smooth enforcement of IP rights in Pakistan. 

IPO-Pakistan is required to arrange talks and seminars and there are no such activities arranged by 

IPO-Pakistan on regular basis to promote awareness among public at large. Every human being has a 

mind and it creates ideas which are required protection and for that purpose IP law enforcement must 

be adequate to protect IP rights. Previous governments of Pakistan did not give importance to IP laws 

and their enforcement procedures that is why international investors are reluctant to invest in Pakistan. 

It is the dire need of the people generally and traders and investors specially to improve enforcement 

procedures of IP including trademark in Pakistan (Maker, 2014). 

Lahore High Court held in the case of Messrs Asli Mand Barfi Shop v Messrs Mand Barfi Shop, that 

Trademark Registry of Pakistan facing low disposal of cases under administrative authority, substantial 

backlog, inadequacy of staff, shortage of examiners in charge of registration, lack of IP experts and 

transparency. The Court held that pendency of cases at Trademark Registry are increasing due to acute 

shortage of staff. It is therefore expected that Trademark Registry is required to take initiative for fresh 

recruitments, promotions and creation of new posts as early as possible and make all efforts to clear 

and decrease backlog of cases within minimum possible time by making full use of existing working 

potential till appointments of new incumbents (Messrs Asli Mand Barfi Shop v Messrs Mand Barfi 

Shop, 2016). 

Kari mullah Adeni stated in his article in the Dawn that there are not many IP tribunals in Pakistan. The 

authority is designated to District & Sessions Judge in Islamabad, which was also in Lahore but 

recently retired Justice of Lahore High Court is designated as Presiding Officer of IP Tribunal in 

Lahore and former Registrar was designated as Presiding Officer of IP Tribunal in Karachi. 

IPO-Pakistan is required to make more efforts for establishment of more IP tribunals throughout 

Pakistan as currently number of IP Tribunals are not sufficient for a country of more than 200 million 

people and a territory of around 8 lac kilometers. Therefore it is a dire need of time that more IP 

Tribunals should be established throughout Pakistan (Adeni, 2015). 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

117 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Trademark Registration Authority 

Trademark Registration Authority is an autonomous body designated to register trademarks under 

trademark law of the land. Trademark Registry works under IPO-Pakistan in Pakistan under Intellectual 

Property Organization of Pakistan Act 2012. Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) 

works under Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia Act 2002 in Malaysia and United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) works under Lanham Trademark Act 1946 and Title 35, United 

States Code 1926 in USA. 

In Pakistan, Trademark Registry registers and protects registered trademarks in Pakistan under 

Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO-Pakistan). Section 9 of Trade Marks Ordinance 

2001 states that Trademark Registry and its branches are established to facilitate registration of 

trademarks in Pakistan (Section 9 Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001; Rule 128 Trade Marks Rules, 2004). 

In the case of Independent Media Corporation Private Limited v Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh, the Court held 

that IPO-Pakistan is statutory body established under Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act 

2012 and the Registrar of Trademark is head of Trademark Registry appointed to register and protect 

trademarks under Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 and Trade Marks Rules 2004 (Independent Media 

Corporation Private Limited v Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh, 2015). 

There are only two branches of Trademark Registry in Lahore and Islamabad apart from its Head 

Office in Karachi, Pakistan. More branches of Trademark Registry are required to be established in 

Pakistan as it is a country of more than 200 million people thus only two branches are inexpedient. 

Trademark Registry works under IPO-Pakistan thus it cannot work properly and independently for 

promotion and protection of trademarks in Pakistan hence it is required to be separated from 

IPO-Pakistan and should be made an autonomous body for smooth implementation of administrative 

procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan. Trademark Registry lacks men power and IP expert 

examiners hence IP experts should be hired and expert Examiner in charge of Registration should be 

appointed at Trademark Registry. 

In the case of Messrs Asli Mand Barfi Shop v Messrs Mand Barfi Shop, the Court held that low disposal, 

substantial backlog, inadequacy of staff in Trademark Registry particularly and there is shortage of 

examiners performing key role in processing application. Trademark Registry deals with rights of 

trademark owners in view of current surge in consumerism, there is dire requirement for protection of 

such rights which is not possible without ensuring transparency in manner and system maintained by 

Trademark Registry. The Court issues orders that the Registrar of trademark shall ensure strict 

adherence to policy on first come first serve basis. All applications filed prior in time shall be dealt 

with and processed per chronological order and transparency in system shall be maintained. The 

Registrar will be personally held responsible for any lapse or dereliction in this respect. 

The Court further held that there is acute shortage of staff in Trademark Registry hence pendency of 

cases over there is tremendously increasing. It is expected that IPO-Pakistan and Trademark Registry 

required to take initiative for fresh recruitments, promotions and creation of new posts as early as 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

118 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

possible. Trademark Registry is required to make all efforts to clear and decrease backlog of cases 

within minimum possible time by making full use of existing work potential till appointments of new 

incumbents (Messrs Asli Mand Barfi Shop v Messrs Mand Barfi Shop, 2016). 

According to section 107 of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001, any person uses his place of business as 

Trademark Registry or issues document, uses word which would reasonably lead to believe that his 

place of business relates to Trademark Registry is guilty of an offence and punishable with 

imprisonment up to 2 years with fine or both (Khan, 2010). 

In Malaysia, Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) is established under Intellectual 

Property Corporation of Malaysia Act 2002 for implementation of IP rights in Malaysia. The Head 

office of MyIPO is in Kuala Lumpur and there are several regional offices in Sabah, Sarawak, Johor 

Bahru, Kuantan, Penang and Melaka. All regional offices receive applications for entry into the register 

of trademark and submitting application at regional office would be deemed as submission at 

Headquarter. The register of trademark is kept at the Headquarter. 

All entries includes proprietor’s and registered user’s name, addresses and descriptions as well as 

assignments and transmissions’ record of all entries with disclaimers, conditions and limitations. If two 

trademarks are identical which cause confusion, trademark registered first would prevail except if it is 

not abandoned, refused or successfully opposed (Sections 4, 4A, 5 Trade Marks Act, 1976; Kandiah, 

2004).  

The Registrar of trademark is the Director General of MyIPO. The Assistant Registrars, the Deputy 

Registrars and other officers are appointed from time to time. They can do all acts as are prescribed for 

the Registrar under Trade Marks Act 1976. The official seal of MyIPO is with the Registrar and any 

document contains the official seal is admissible evidence before the Court. Immunity is granted to the 

Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant Registrar and other appointed officers of MyIPO for all 

actions they do in good faith under Trade Marks Act 1976 (Section 3, Trade Marks Act, 1976; Chong, 

1998). 

MyIPO (i) imposes fees and charges for its services, (ii) appoints an agent, (iii) consults an expert to 

assist it, (iv) grants loans to its employees, (v) co-operates with any other corporation or government, 

(vi) appoints and regulates examiner, (vii) appoints committee to assist it, and (viii) does all other acts 

under Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia Act 2002 (Sections 18, 19 Intellectual Property 

Corporation of Malaysia Act, 2002; Ahmad, Mahmod, & Kamal, 2006). 

In USA, USPTO is specialized agency of patent and trademark registration and protection, works under 

the Department of Commerce in USA. The Secretary of Commerce gives directions for its policies, but 

financial matters would be conducted independently. Registration of patents and registration of 

trademarks are dealt separately at USPTO. The Head office of USPTO is at Alexandra, Virginia and 

there are other satellite offices in Dallas, Denver, Detroit and in Silicon Valley. 

USPTO issues certificates of trademark registration and provides information of registration to public. 

USPTO makes regulations for smooth running of its affairs. USPTO deals with applications submitted 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

119 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

online or by hand as well as to recognize representative of applicant, e.g., agent, attorney or other 

person and requires him to show whether he possesses required qualification, has good character and 

reputation in the society. USPTO safeguards public interest by reviewing registration fee time to time, 

conducts its functions impartially, provides fruitful benefits to national economy and does other works 

for smooth implementation of patent and trademark rights (Sections 1, 2 Title 35 United States Code, 

1926; Brown, 1995). 

USPTO advices the President of USA on IP issues through the Secretary of Commerce as well as to 

advice the Federal Departments, foreign governments, domestic and international agencies, conducts 

and organizes programs and studies domestically and internationally and advices the Secretary of 

Commerce on such programs and studies. The Director of USPTO is citizen of USA and appointed by 

the President of USA. He performs duties of management, registration and gives policy directions in 

fair, impartial and equitable manner. He consults with Trademark Public Advisory Committee before 

submitting budget (Section 2 Title 35 United States Code, 1926). 

The Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Director are nominated by the Director and appointed by the 

Secretary of Commerce. The Commissioner is appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for 5 years and 

his term may be renewed for next 5 years if his performance is satisfactory and he may be removed if 

his performance is not satisfactory. The Director may appoint other officers as he deems necessary for 

carrying out functions of USPTO and other experienced persons may be hired for giving training to 

examiners of trademark (Section 3 Title 35 United States Code, 1926; Quillen & Webster, 2001). 

USPTO have Trademark Public Advisory Committee consisted of 9 voting members appointed by the 

Secretary of Commerce for 3 years. They must be citizens of USA and have competency in finance, 

management, labor relations, science, technology and office automation. Trademark Public Advisory 

Committee is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and he may call its meeting anytime as he deems 

necessary. Trademark Public Advisory Committee advises the Director in fiscal matters, prepares, 

submits and publishes annual report (Allison & Lemley, 2002). Trademark Public Advisory Committee 

is filled up with IP experts, gives recommendations for betterment of the system hence it is required to 

be made at Trademark Registry in Pakistan for smooth implementation of trademark law in Pakistan. 

The Director of USPTO maintains library of domestic and international scientific works for aiding 

USPTO. He is required to submit report before the Congress containing information about earning, 

expenditure, purpose of expenditure, quality, quantity and nature of works, valuation of commissioner, 

other relevant information of USPTO within 180 days after expiration of one fiscal year. Any agent or 

attorney may be suspended or excluded by the Director of USPTO on grounds of incompetency, 

disreputableness, misconduct, fraud or deceiving, misleading and threatening applicants (Section 32 

Title 35 United States Code, 1926; Ackerman, 2011). 

The Director of USPTO is required to submit report of its activities in one fiscal year before the 

Congress which would lead for betterment of the system. The Registrar of trademark in Pakistan should 

be required to submit its report before the Parliament every year which would strengthen the system 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

120 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

and would put check and balance on Trademark Registry and a step forward for betterment of 

trademark enforcement in Pakistan. 

 

4. Opposition of Trademark 

Opposition of trademark is important part in enforcement of trademark law which takes place before 

the Registrar of trademark in Pakistan, before the Director of MyIPO in Malaysia and before 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in USA when the Director of USPTO transfers application of 

trademark registration opposition to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for the final decision. 

Opposition of trademark registration proceedings carried out by administrative authority therefore it is 

purely an administrative matter whose appeal may be filed before the Court by aggrieved party. 

In Pakistan, an aggrieved party of trademark infringement may apply before the Registrar of trademark 

at Trademark Registry during application procedure of trademark registration when application is 

published after acceptance (Section 28 Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001; Khan, 2010). 

Applicant of trademark registration is required to defend his application before Trademark Registry. In 

the case of Muhammad Saleem Warind v Maziiar, Sindh High Court refer case of Messrs PT 

SELAMAT SEMPURA Tbk, Indonesia who applied for registration of trademark “SAKURA” on 20th 

October 1997. Application was accepted and advertised in Trademark Journal No. 588 dated 1st 

January 2000. Pursuant to advertisement application of trademark registration was opposed but not 

contested by applicant of trademark registration hence application was treated as abandoned by 

Trademark Registry (Muhammad Saleem Warind v Maziiar, 2015). 

Interested party may oppose registration of trademark through opposition letter within 2 months from 

the date of advertisement. The Registrar serves its copy to applicant and requires him to reply within 2 

months. Applicant submits counter statement to the Registrar and the Registrar serves its copy to 

opponent who is required to send rejoinder within 2 months. After collection of evidences, the 

Registrar either accepts application of trademark registration or rejects it. Appeal against decision of 

the Registrar lies before the High Court in Pakistan and there is no Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

at Trademark Registry as at USPTO in USA where appeal against decision of the Registrar lies before 

going to the Court. Once validity of registered trademark is decided in favor of proprietor, if any person 

objects on validity again in any legal proceedings, proprietor has right to obtain full costs, charges and 

expenses of proceedings (Rules 30, 31 Trade Marks Rules, 2004; Rana, 2012). 

Registration of trademark may be opposed if (i) application is made by non-proprietor of trademark, (ii) 

documents filed with application are contrary to provisions of Trade Marks Ordinance 2001, (iii) 

evidence or representation presented by applicant is false in material, (iv) advertisement made before 

acceptance of registration application is without sufficient cause, (v) trademark applied for is identical 

to already registered trademark, (vi) trademark applied for is consisted of false geographical indication, 

(vii) registered trademark is not used within 5 years from the date of its registration without sufficient 

cause, (vii) usage has been suspended for 5 years without valid reason, (viii) trademark has become 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

121 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

common name or an activity in trade of product for which it was registered, or (viii) misleads general 

public in respect of quality, nature or geographical origin because of usage in a sense to alter its 

distinctive character (Section 29 Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001; Adeni, 2014). 

In the case of Smithkline Beecham P.L.C. through Authorized Signatory v the Registrar of Trademark, 

appellant is one of the leading global healthcare company which inter alia engaged in manufacturing 

business and sale of toothbrushes and toothpastes. Appellants made important innovations in 1973 of 

toothpaste being extruded from toothpaste tube mouth into toothbrush hereinafter referred to as 

“speckled toothpaste slug device” commonly known as “slugs”. Appellant filed application in number 

of countries around the world, but no application was filed in Pakistan. Respondent advertised similar 

trademark hence appellant opposed application of similar trademark which was rejected by the 

Registrar on a ground that it would be just and equitable to grant right to applicants in respect of 

trademark associated with toothpaste which is in no doubt not descriptive and distinctive (Smithkline 

Beecham v the Registrar of Trademark, 2016). 

The Registrar of trademark while deciding issue between disputing parties during registration process 

has all powers as judge of the Civil Court to receive oral and written evidences through affidavit, 

administer oaths, enforce attendance of witnesses, issue summons to produce document, issue 

commission to examine witnesses and issue certificate (Section 111 Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001; 

Zafar, 2014). 

In Malaysia, Opposing party may apply before the Registrar of trademark against registration 

application of trademark in Malaysia through written notice consisting grounds of opposition, 

following counter statement from applicant of trademark registration. The Registrar is empowered to 

summons witnesses, summons production of documents, takes evidences from witnesses on oath and 

award costs. Any person summons by the Registrar, does not comply with it, would be liable to 

imprisonment for 3 months or 1 thousand ringgits fine or both (Section 75 Trade Marks Act, 1976; 

Kandan, 1996). 

After hearing both parties, the Registrar of trademark either accepts application of registration in full or 

with some conditions or rejects it. Decision of the Registrar is appealable before the Court within 

prescribed time and the Court decides matter after hearing both parties and the Registrar. If additional 

grounds are taken in the Court during appeal proceedings, appellant may withdraw appeal without costs. 

If applicant is not resident of Malaysia, The Registrar of trademark may require him to submit security 

for costs of proceedings while giving notices, providing counter statements and submitting appeal in 

the Court, failing which, notices, counter statements and appeal would be abandoned (Section 28 Trade 

Marks Act, 1976; Ahmad, Mahmod, & Kamal, 2006). 

If costs are awarded by the Registrar of trademark in favor of aggrieved party, it can be recovered 

through court proceedings of default payment by opposing party. The Registrar of trademark may not 

give his verdict on any matter in issue ex-parte without hearing opposite party as right of hearing is 

fundamental right of every party in proceedings (Section 28 Trade Marks Act, 1976; Khadijah, Ismail, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

122 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

& Aziz, 2016). 

In USA, the Director of USPTO is head of administrative process runs at USPTO in USA. Any person 

believes to have been damaged due to registration of trademark in trademark register may apply in a 

written form to the Director of USPTO for opposition of registration within 30 days from the date of 

publication or within such time as may be extended by the Director as requested. The Director may 

notify applicant for statement of opposition as well as for extension of opposition time (Section 13 

Lanham Trademark Act, 1946; Diggins, 1946).  

Right of registered trademark owner is incontestable if (i) there is no decision on registration against 

the owner, (ii) there is no related matter pending before the Court, (iii) affidavit describing goods or 

services registered under trademark filed within 1 year after expiration of continues 5 years’ use in 

commerce, or (iv) trademark is not generic name (Section 15 Lanham Trademark Act, 1946). 

Any damage occurred to a person due to registration of trademark under Lanham Trademark Act 1946, 

aggrieved party may apply for its cancellation before the Director within 5 years from the date of its 

registration, on any of the following grounds: (i) trademark becomes generic name of goods or services, 

(ii) trademark has not being used or abandoned, (iii) registration of trademark is adopted by fraud, (iv) 

registration of trademark is contrary to provisions of Lanham Trademark Act 1946, (v) trademark is 

used to misrepresent source of goods or services, (vi) trademark is registered but not published, (vii) 

owner of trademark does not have control over trademark, (viii) owner of trademark engages in 

production or marketing of goods or services for which certification mark is applied, (ix) owner of 

trademark permits use of trademark other than for which it is certified, (x) owner of trademark 

discriminately refuses to certify person who has maintained standard and conditions throughout its use, 

or (xi) trademark is used in a way to deceive public (Section 14 Lanham Trademark Act, 1946; USPTO, 

2015). 

 

5. Intellectual Property Tribunal 

Intellectual Property (IP) Tribunal is established to settle disputes between disputing parties dealing 

with IP including trademark. Three IP Tribunals established in Pakistan under sections 15-16 of 

Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act 2012. Former Registrar of trademark at Trademark 

Registry in Karachi, District and Sessions Judge in Islamabad and retired Judge of Lahore High Court 

designated authority as Presiding Officer of IP Tribunal in Lahore, Pakistan. Every Malaysian state has 

IP Court and in USA, United States International Trade Commission established for administrative 

procedure of trademark enforcement as well as Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at USPTO is 

established to settle IP issues between disputing parties for smooth implementation of administrative 

procedure of trademark enforcement. 

In Pakistan, IP Tribunal established under Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act 2012. IP 

Tribunal is consisted of IP experts have years of experience in IP. Three IP Tribunals established under 

Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act 2012 in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. The Federal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

123 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Government of Pakistan has made IP Tribunals for settlement of IP issues expediently in short time. 

Accused may be prosecuted in IP Tribunal on application of registered trademark owner and decision 

of IP Tribunal is required to be made within 90 days. 

The Presiding officer of IP Tribunal is appointed by the Federal Government of Pakistan for 3 years 

which is renewable for another same term and age limit of presiding officer is 65 years. IP Tribunal 

may take help of IP experts and their remunerations may be paid by party in whose favor expert is 

called upon by IP Tribunal (Section 16 Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012; Malik, 

2010). 

IP Tribunal is authorized to hear cases dealing with IP under IP laws of Pakistan. The High Court may 

transfer one tribunal’s case to another. An appeal on final decision of IP Tribunal can be filed by 

aggrieved party within 30 days before the High Court (Sections 15 to 19, Intellectual Property 

Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012; Jaan, 2010; Jilani, 2013) 90 days are given for IP Tribunal to 

dispose of cases presented before it which would save time of the Court for other disputing matters and 

it is going to enhance confidence of traders and investors on Pakistan as well. 

In Malaysia, every Malaysian state has IP Court. In 2006, the Technical Committee was formed by 

Malaysian Government to conduct research based on study tour to IP Courts in South Korea, Thailand, 

Japan and United Kingdom. The Technical Committee suggested that it is useful to establish IP Court 

in every state of Malaysia. Establishment of IP Court will ensure efficient and speedy trial by IP 

experts. IP Court staff would have exposure and expertise in IP. Judges would be appointed based on 

their experience and long standing involvement in IP. IP Court establishment would reduce possibility 

of appeal considerably and ultimately save time of the Court and public money. It would also enhance 

national coordination in interpretation of IP law, encourage commercial exploitation, enhance 

economic development in modern society, and encourage awareness and confidence of general public 

on IP legal protection. IT would also bring confidence to commercial and business community and 

provide strong indicator to international community on seriousness of Malaysian Government for 

effective IP protection (Meland, 2005; Zuallcobley, 2012). 

Initially for assessing viability of IP Courts in Malaysia, the Sessions Court of Kuala Lumpur was 

designated powers of IP Court on 1st January 2006. Designated Court tried IP cases effectively and with 

faster rate. IP Court was not burdened to hear other criminal cases. The Presiding Officer and 

supporting staff were knowledgeable in IP matters hence in view of the outcome of research and 

practical experience of Kuala Lumpur IP Court, IP Court established in every state of Malaysia in July 

2007. 

IP Court powers are designated to the Sessions Court in every state and to the High Court in 6 states: 

Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Johor, Perak, Sabah and Sarawak. Purpose of IP Court in Malaysia is to 

remove Malaysia from IP International Watch list, reduce backlog of IP cases, provide better remedies 

and eradicate infringement of trademark. Malaysia took a giant step in July 2007 to establish IP Courts 

making Malaysia one of the first countries in the region to have specialized courts to dispose of IP 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

124 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

cases. 15 Sessions Courts have criminal jurisdiction to deal primarily with counterfeiting and piracy 

cases and 6 High Courts have civil and appellate jurisdiction (Kadir, 2008; Koon, 2011). 

IP Courts of Malaysia have criminal jurisdiction under Trade Descriptions Act 2011. According to 

section 60 of Trade Descriptions Act 2011, the Sessions Court have jurisdiction to try offences under 

Trade Descriptions Act 2011 and to impose full punishment for any such offence. Aggrieved person 

may lodge complaint before the Assistant Controller against accused and provide details of accused, 

details of premises where offence is committed or about to be committed and details of alleged offence. 

The Assistant Controller investigates infringement of false trade description and other related offences 

under Trade Descriptions Act 2011. If the Assistant Controller reasonably believes that offence is 

committed or about to be committed, he transfers case to the Sessions Court for trial (Sections 30, 31 

Trade Descriptions Act, 2011; Sahlan, 2014). 

In USA, United States International Trade Commission (USITC) established in 1916. USITC is an 

independent quasi-judicial agency undertakes investigations on unfair methods of competition and 

trademark infringement and to provide variety of powerful remedies under section 337 of Tariff Act 

1930 (Section 337 Tariff Act 1930). 

If trademark infringement is proved beyond reasonable doubt, trademark owner may claim 

non-monetary relief through (i) exclusion orders to bar infringing imports, (ii) cease or desist orders 

prohibiting respondents from engaging in specified commercial activities with respect to infringing 

articles. Moreover, 16 months are prescribed to complete investigation of trademark infringement. 

After institution of investigation, USITC appoints an independent litigant to represent public interest as 

party to investigation. Thereafter, six judges of USITC would assigned investigation. Responses to 

written discovery are due within 10 days. Parties may proceed for summary trial and judgement within 

60 days (Sections 1330 to 1341 Title 19 United States Code 1926). 

Assigned judges will conduct evidentiary hearing for 8 to 9 months after an investigation. Thereafter 

within few months, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue initial determination whether section 

337 of Tariff Act 1930 is violated and recommend determination, remedy and bond. Thenceforth, 

USITC will review the initial determination issued by ALJ, and issue final order as well as the remedy. 

The President has 60 days to veto the final decision in case if violation is found (Whitaker & Rauh, 

2017). 

Moreover, there is Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at USPTO which is consisted of the Director, the 

Deputy Director, the Commissioner of trademark, the Commissioner of patent and trademark and 

administrative judges as are appointed by the Director of USPTO. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

is directed by the Director to resolve issues of interference, opposition to registration, concurrent use of 

registration and cancellation of registration. The Director issues notices to all relevant parties before 

start of proceedings directing them to participate in proceedings before Trademark Trial and Appeal 

Board. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

125 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

During proceedings, the Director may refuse to register trademark, cancel registration of trademark, 

modify application of trademark registration, restrict use, rectify registration and fix conditions and 

limitations on such use. No decision can be given in favor of applicant unless trademark is registered, 

and applicant becomes registered owner of trademark. Principles of estoppel, laches and acquiescence 

apply in proceedings of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Sections 15 to 20 Lanham Trademark Act, 

1946; Ehrlich, Friedman, Mirman, & Quinn, 1997). 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is administrative body at USPTO where applicants of trademark 

registration file appeals against decisions of Examiner in Charge of Registration. There is a need of 

such body at Trademark Registry in Pakistan for smooth administrative procedure of trademark 

enforcement.  

 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations 

Administrative procedure of trademark enforcement is required to be expedient, adequate, fair, 

equitable, and must not be complicated, costly and time consuming under the light of article 41 of 

TRIPS Agreement which is required to be complied by member states of WTO. Trademark Registry 

under IPO-Pakistan is trademark registration authority of Pakistan. MyIPO is trademark registration 

authority of Malaysia and USPTO is trademark registration authority of USA. Trademark Registry of 

Pakistan lacks men power and IP experts for smooth and timely disposing of cases. There are only two 

branches of Trademark Registry throughout Pakistan in Lahore and Islamabad apart from its Head 

Office in Karachi, which is not adequate for a country of more than 200 million people. Therefore more 

branches of Trademark Registry are required to be established throughout Pakistan, and more men 

power and IP experts should be hired at Trademark Registry in Pakistan. 

Trademark Public Advisory Committee should be made at Trademark Registry in Pakistan which is 

consisted of IP experts to recommend changes to the Registrar of Trademark for betterment of 

trademark enforcement procedures. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board should be established at 

Trademark Registry to hear appeals against decisions of expert Examiner in Charge of Registration as 

well as conduct proceedings for opposition of trademark. 

The Registrar of trademark should be asked to submit yearly report before the Parliament for smooth 

conduct of Trademark Registry activities as the Director of USPTO is required to submit report on 

activities of USPTO before the Congress after every fiscal year in USA. This type of requirement 

should be prescribed under trademark law of Pakistan and the Registrar of trademark should be 

required to present report on activities of Trademark Registry before the Parliament for check and 

balance on Trademark Registry in Pakistan for betterment of trademark enforcement procedures 

including administrative procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan. 

There are only 3 IP Tribunals in Pakistan established under sections 15-16 of Intellectual Property 

Organization of Pakistan Act 2012 required to decide a matter within 90 days and appeal against its 

decision is required to be made before the High Court. Every Malaysian state has IP Court and there is 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

126 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

USITC as well as Trademark Trial and Appeal Board at USPTO in USA. Only three IP Tribunals are 

not expedient for a country of more than 200 million people thenceforth more IP Tribunals are required 

to be established in Pakistan for betterment of trademark enforcement administrative procedure.   

 

References 

Ackerman, L. J. (2011). Prioritization: Addressing the Patent Application Backlog at the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26(2011), 67. 

Adeni, K. (2014). Illegal status of Intellectual Property Organisation. Ali and Associates, Pakistan. 

Retrieved from http://www.aliassociates.com.pk/article2.html 

Adeni, K. (2015). IP Courts: Are We Ready For Them? Dawn. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from 

https://www.dawn.com/news/1219925 

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (1994). World Trade 

Organization. 

Ahmad, W. A., Mahmod, N., & Kamal, N. A. (2006). Administrative Law in Malaysia. In Sweet & 

Maxwell Asia. Malaysia. 

Allison, J. R., & Lemley, M. A. (2002). The Growing Complexity of the United States Patent System. 

Boston University Law Review, 82(2002), 77. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.281395 

America, I. S. (2015). United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). World Intellectual 

Property Organization. 

Brown, W. H. (1995). Trends in patent renewals at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

World Patent Information, 17(4), 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0172-2190(95)00043-7 

Chong, J. W. C. (1998). Malaysian Intellectual Property Laws and their Compliance with the TRIPs 

Agreement. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 1(6), 1003-1016. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.1998.tb00046.x 

Diggins, B. (1946). The Lanham Trademark Act. The Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 35(1946), 

147. 

Donald, B. B. (2013). Intellectual Property Rights: Pakistan Needs Proper Laws to Attract Investmen. 

In The Express Tribune.  

Ehrlich, D. W., Richard A., Friedman, D. L., Mirman, & Quinn, T. J. (1997). Trademark Prosecution in 

the Patent and Trademark Office and Litigation in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 8(2), 451. 

Independent Media Corporation Private Limited v Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh. (2015). Sindh High Court. 

Civil Law Digest, 1448. 

Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia Act. (2002). Malaysia (Act 617). 

Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act. (2012). Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Act XXII).  

Jaan, J. S. (2010). Judicial Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Pakistan. International 

Workshop on Business Incubation Center, Islamabad, Pakistan. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

127 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Jilani, J. T. H. (2013). IPR Laws: “Courts” Role Crucial in Implementing Law. The Express Tribune. 

Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 

Kadir, K. F. A. (2008). The Establishment of the Intellectual Property Court in Malaysia. Azmi & 

Associates: Intellectual Property Practice Group, 53 (January/February). 

Kandan, V. L. (1996). Trademark Law in Malaysia. Intellectual Property Law and Policy, 1(1996), 89. 

Kandiah, P. (2004). Intellectual Property Enforcement in Malaysia. Kandiah & Associates, Malaysia. 

Khadijah, M., Ismail, N., & Aziz, A. S. (2016). Prevention of Trademark Counterfeiting through 

Intellectual Property Enforcement System in Malaysia. The Debt Financing and Financing Risk 

Persistency, 2016, 82. 

Khan, M. F. I. (2010). Trademark in Pakistan. United Trademark & Patent Services, Lahore, Pakistan.  

Koon, T. H. (2011). Malaysian Intellectual Property: Dawn of a New Age. SKRINE, Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia. 

Lanham Trademark Act. (1946). United States of America (Act 15). 

Maker, H. (2014). Intellectual Property Rights in Pakistan. The Nation. 

Malik, N. A. (2010). Manual of Trade Marks & Intellectual Property Laws. Four Star Publishers. 

Pakistan. 

Matthews, D. (2003). Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPS Agreement. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203165683 

Meland, M. (2005). Malaysia to Open IP Court in Two-Three Years. In Law 360 & LexisNexis. Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia. 

Messrs Asli Mand Barfi Shop v Messrs Mand Barfi Shop. (2016). Lahore High Court. Civil Law Digest 

2167. 

Muhammad Saleem Warind v Maziiar. (2015). Sindh High Court. Civil Law Digest, 655. 

Quillen, C. D. J., & Webster, O. H. (2001). Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the US 

Patent and Trademark Office. The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 11(2001), 1. 

Rana, S. S. (2013). Trademark Registration in Pakistan. S. S. Rana & Co Advocates, New Delhi, India. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.ssrana.in/Intellectual%20Property/SAARC/Pakistan/Trademark-Registration-in-Pakist

an.aspx 

Sahlan, S. A. B. (2014). Intellectual Property Awareness among Public: Comparative Study between 

Malaysia and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Technical Research & Applications, 

10(2014), 84-88. 

Smithkline Beecham P.L.C. through Authorized Signatory v the Registrar of Trademark. (2016). Sindh 

High Court, Civil Law Digest 1647. 

Tariff Act. (1930). United States of America (Act 112-99). 

Trade Descriptions Act Malaysia. (2011). Malaysia (Act 730). 

Trade Marks Act. (1976). Malaysia (Act 176). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019 

128 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Trade Marks Ordinance. (2001). Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Act XIX). 

Trade Marks Rules. (2004). Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Act 211 (I)). 

United States Code (Customs Duties). (1926). United States of America (Title-19). 

United States Code (Patents). (1926). United States of America (Title-35). 

Whitaker, M., & Rauh, A. (2017). Asserting Trademarks and Available Remedies at the ITC. Morison 

& Foerster, United States of America. Retrieved from 

https://mofoatitc.mofo.com/litigation-strategy/asserting-trademarks-itc/ 

Zafar, I. (2014). Trademark Infringement in Pakistan. Zafar & Associates, Lahore, Pakistan. Retrieved 

from http://www.zallp.com/trademark_law.html 

Zuallcobley, R. W. (2012). International Intellectual Property Institute (IIPI) and United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO). United States of America. Retrieved from 

http://iipi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Study-on-Specialized-IPR-Courts.pdf 

 

 

 


