ISLAMABAD: The case of one of the most popular beverages in the country has landed in the Supreme Court.
Rooh Afza is in a dispute with a competitor, Rooh-i-Samar, for an alleged infringement of trademark.
Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan, the Karachi-based manufacturer of Rooh Afza, claims that the product produced by its competitor is deceptively similar to the one it makes.
The makers of Rooh-i-Samar, however, disagree and argue that their product is not so identical so as to have the potential of confusing consumers.
Consequently, a three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed has summoned samples of the two brands at the next hearing on June 17 to ascertain the truth.
The court had taken up an appeal instituted by Mohammad Faheem of the Cornish Foods Karachi, the manufacturer of Rooh-i-Samar, against the May 3 judgement of the Sindh High Court.
The high court in its order had held that the trademark, trade dress and get-up by Rooh-i-Samar infringe upon common law right of Rooh Afza. It had also restrained the makers of Rooh-i-Samar from infringing on the label of Rooh Afza in any manner by selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise using on its syrup trademark Rooh-i-Samar either alone or in conjunction with any other mark, words, figures or devices.
During the proceedings Justice Maqbool Baqir, a member of the bench, quipped that though the labels of both red beverages show different fruits as ingredients they were never used in the making of the products.
Advocate Sultan Ahmed Sheikh, who represented Hamdard Laboratories that has been selling the red syrup under the coined name of Rooh Afza for decades, told Dawn that its competitors were damaging the repute and standing of the old brand.
He argued that the brand Rooh Afza was registered under the Trademark Act, 1940, in British India on Aug 3, 1942, and that eight different versions of the trademark by using trademark “Rooh” had been regularly registered from 1961 to 1984.
Being a household name used for over half a century, the counsel said, the trademark of Rooh Afza has acquired extreme popularity, which also attracts newcomers to allegedly disguise their trademarks and trade-dress similar or confusingly similar to that of the one produced by Hamdard Laboratories.
The counsel alleged that the competitors intended to deceive customers and to take benefit of the hard-earned reputation and market space created over the past 73 years.
On the other hand, Advocate Abdul Rauf Rohaila, who represented Rooh-i-Samar, argued that the calligraphy used by the petitioner’s company was of different style compared to that of Rooh Afza besides the colours of fruits used in the label were totally different.
Citing Article 18 of the Constitution, the counsel argued that the article provided freedom of trade. Besides, Rooh-i-Samar customers buy the product because they are satisfied with the quality of the syrup produced.
Moreover, there was no question of confusion or deception since the trademark of Rooh Afza was so popular that consumers ask for it by name while the trademark of the petitioner has not reached that level of popularity and was only purchased as ‘Lal Sharbat’ (red syrup) or by its own name Rooh-i-Samar.
Published in Dawn, June 11th, 2016
