Infringement happens when someone uses, in the course of trade, a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered mark, on goods or services close enough to cause confusion about where they came from. Falsely representing a mark as registered, or interfering with register entries, are separate statutory wrongs alongside infringement itself.
Under Sections 39–40 of the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001, a registered mark is treated as the personal property of its owner, and Section 40 sets out when unauthorized use crosses into infringement — broadly, four situations:
| Mark used by the alleged infringer | Goods/services involved | Generally treated as infringement? |
|---|---|---|
| Identical to the registered mark | Identical to the registered class | Yes |
| Identical to the registered mark | Similar to the registered class | Yes, if confusion is likely |
| Similar mark | Identical to the registered class | Yes, if confusion is likely |
| Similar mark | Similar goods/services | Yes, if confusion is likely |
The law doesn’t require proof that anyone was actually deceived — a genuine likelihood of confusion is enough. Courts and Tribunals typically weigh a cluster of factors together, none decisive on its own: how close the marks look and sound, goods relatedness and whether the two businesses sell into the same class of goods, how distinctiveness and reputation of the earlier mark, any actual confusion evidence already surfacing in the market, the marketing channels each side uses, and the consumer care level an ordinary buyer is likely to bring to that kind of purchase. Courts apply this as a multi-factor test — a graduated assessment rather than a checklist, so a strong showing on some factors can offset a weaker one elsewhere.
Free-riding on an established reputation is treated seriously even where the products themselves aren’t identical — using a name close enough to a well-known mark to draw the same customers, even for a related line of goods, is one of the more common patterns we see in practice.
A frequent misconception is that only a registered proprietor can act against a copycat. Pakistani law doesn’t require officially registered status as a prerequisite to every remedy. An owner who has built genuine goodwill in an unregistered mark can pursue a civil passing-off route — a common-law passing off claim — by showing goodwill in the mark, a misrepresentation by the defendant likely to deceive, and resulting damage. This gives unregistered owners a real, if narrower, path to relief.
That said, completed trademark registration in Pakistan changes the practical shape of a case substantially. A registration certificate carries a legal presumption of ownership and validity, shifting much of the evidentiary burden onto the party challenging it — which is exactly why our advice rarely stops at “enforce when it happens.” Ongoing monitoring paired with a registered mark gives a business its strongest, fastest route to relief.
A few standing points worth knowing before filing:
Pakistani law offers three broad tracks, and most serious disputes use more than one at once.
This is the most commonly pursued route, and the one that stops the harm fastest. A rights holder can seek a permanent injunction to end further use of the offending mark, or, where the matter is urgent, an application for interim relief — a preliminary injunction — while the main case proceeds. Courts grant interim relief on three conditions: a prima facie case, irreparable harm if relief is withheld, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicant. Beyond stopping the use itself, a successful plaintiff can recover damages for actual loss and lost opportunity, or seek an account of profits — the infringer’s wrongful earnings instead of the owner’s losses. Courts and Tribunals can additionally order court-ordered delivery-up, destruction, or obliteration of infringing stock, labels, packaging, and the moulds or tools used to produce them, so counterfeit material can’t quietly re-enter the market later.
Criminal exposure runs on two tracks in parallel. Section 99 of the Ordinance penalises false trade description and falsely claiming a mark is registered. Separately, Pakistan Penal Code provisions — commonly cited as Sections 478 through 489 — criminalise the broader mechanics of counterfeiting: using a false trademark, manufacturing or possessing tools such as dies or plates intended to produce counterfeit marks, and knowingly selling goods bearing a counterfeit mark. Penalties include fines and imprisonment, with heavier terms where a public servant’s mark is involved. A criminal matter can begin with a private complaint before a magistrate or through a police FIR, and where a company is the offender, directors and managers can face personal liability for the offence where it’s shown to have occurred with their consent, connivance, or through their negligence — company liability doesn’t automatically shield the individuals running it.
These matter most against imported counterfeits. A rights holder can give written notice to the Collector of Customs, who can then treat matching shipments as prohibited goods, subject to seizure, detention, and — once infringement is confirmed — destruction. This runs alongside the Directorate General of IPR Enforcement, which coordinates data-sharing between the enforcement authorities and the registries so suspect shipments can be flagged before they clear customs.
In practice, we frequently advise combining tracks: a civil remedies injunction halts the immediate use, a customs notice intercepts fresh counterfeit stock at the border, and a criminal complaint adds real pressure where the other side is acting in bad faith rather than through an honest misunderstanding.
Trademark disputes in Pakistan are heard by specialised forums, not ordinary civil courts. Under the IP Organization Act 2012, provincial IP Tribunals have original jurisdiction over infringement and passing-off suits, registration disputes, and related matters — a Section 117 suit for infringement or passing-off. In Sindh, the Sindh High Court continues to exercise pecuniary jurisdiction over higher-value or more complex matters originating in Karachi and the wider province, commonly cases valued above roughly US$150,000, with the Tribunal handling the remainder. This specialisation matters in practice — judges and Tribunal members who work with trademark law regularly tend to apply the confusion analysis more consistently, and move cases faster, than a generalist court would.
A typical civil action moves through recognisable stages:
Timelines vary with how contested the facts are and how the docket is running. A preliminary or interlocutory injunction can sometimes be secured within roughly one month to a few months of filing where the case for urgency is strong; a full trial through to final judgment on a contested main suit more commonly runs somewhere in the range of two to six years. We set expectations on this early, rather than let a client discover the real timeline midway through.
A final order of the Tribunal can be appealed to the relevant High Court — generally within 30 days. From there, a further appeal on a point of law can, in limited circumstances, reach the Supreme Court, typically requiring leave to appeal. High Courts hear these matters through a single judge at the trial stage and, on appeal from that, a division bench.
In an infringement action, the plaintiff carries the initial burden of proof — showing evidence of title to the mark (a registration certificate is strong, near-conclusive evidence of this) and that the defendant’s unauthorized use falls within Section 40. In a passing-off claim brought by an unregistered owner, the claimant must additionally establish an equitable right in the mark itself before the question of confusion or deception is even reached — a heavier starting burden than a registered owner carries.
Pakistani civil procedure allows two forms of pre-trial disclosure: discovery as to facts (written interrogatories) and discovery as to documents. The court retains discretion over the scope of both, and can compel inspection requests, sworn affidavit evidence, and production of relevant material from either side. Non-compliance with a discovery order carries real consequences — a party’s pleadings can be struck, or in serious cases the suit itself can be dismissed, so both sides generally have a genuine right to defend their position only if they engage with these obligations properly rather than ignore them.
Realistic budgeting matters before committing to a suit. Contested infringement or dilution litigation through trial and, where necessary, appeal commonly runs in the range of PKR 2.5 to 3 million or more—roughly comparable to a range of US$5,000 at the lower end, up to US$25,000 or beyond for a more heavily contested matter. Recovery of costs from the losing side is technically available, but Pakistani tribunals are generally reluctant to award costs in full, and where they do, the amount typically covers only a fraction of the actual trial-preparation expenses. This is a genuinely useful number to have going in, rather than a reason to avoid an otherwise strong claim.
Court isn’t the only route, though it remains the default in practice. Where a pre-existing agreement — a licence, distribution, or franchise contract — includes a binding dispute-resolution clause, arbitration or mediation can resolve a trademark dispute without full litigation, and courts will generally enforce a settlement reached this way. In Pakistan, ADR for trademark matters remains uncommon relative to court proceedings, largely because interim injunctive relief — often the most urgent need — sits more naturally with a court or Tribunal that has direct enforcement power if a party refuses to comply.
Not every use of a similar mark is infringement, and understanding realistic defenses helps a client — on either side — assess a dispute honestly before committing to litigation. Recognised defenses under and alongside Section 40 include:
We assess these from both directions — when building a claim for a brand owner, and when a business comes to us already accused and needs a realistic read on whether a defense actually holds up.
Pakistani trademark law builds in a genuine time pressure. Under the acquiescence rule, if a registered proprietor knowingly allows another party’s use of a similar or identical mark to continue for five years without objecting, they can lose the right to challenge that later use — a bar on the claim — unless the later registration was itself obtained in bad faith, in which case the bad-faith exception keeps the door open regardless of delay. Section 81 and related provisions also govern invalidation and opposition grounds tied to fraud or concealment in how a conflicting mark came to be registered in the first place.
Separately, ordinary civil claims for damages are also subject to general limitation rules under Pakistani law, commonly discussed as a three-year limitation for bringing certain actions from when the infringing act was discovered — a disability (such as minority) can extend this in specific cases. The practical lesson is the same either way: the longer infringement goes unaddressed, the weaker the eventual position becomes, both on the merits and on the available remedies like delivery-up and destruction remedies.
A mark that has achieved genuine recognition — even one never registered in Pakistan — can still resist infringing use here. This protection exists specifically to stop free-riding on international reputation before a genuine competitor even has a chance to build one locally, and it sits alongside, not instead of, an ordinary passing-off claim for marks with a more local reputation.
Counterfeiting and unauthorized use increasingly ignore both borders and platforms, and Pakistan’s enforcement framework has had to keep pace.
Treaty grounding. As a signatory to TRIPS and the Paris Convention, Pakistan’s approach to foreign-linked conduct — manufacturing, advertising, or sale connected to another country but touching Pakistan — draws on these international frameworks even where the infringer themselves is based elsewhere. A genuine local claim generally needs some real connection to Pakistan; conduct with no link here at all typically falls outside what a Pakistani forum can address.
Border enforcement. Beyond the Trade Marks Ordinance’s own customs notice mechanism, the Customs Act 1969 and the Customs Rules, together with the relevant IP chapter, empower customs officers to act against suspected infringing imports without waiting for a court order in urgent cases — goods can be detained pending a decision, with conditional release possible in some circumstances and outright seizure, forfeiture, or destruction where infringement is confirmed. Genuine imports can’t simply be re-exported or subjected to stripping of the offending marks to get around a hold — the mechanism is designed to keep confirmed counterfeit goods out of circulation entirely, whether that’s through local sale or otherwise. Importer notification requirements mean the importing party is generally given a chance to respond before goods are destroyed. The Directorate General of IPR Enforcement works with the Trademarks Registry and Patent Office and Copyright Office on shared data-sharing so a proprietor notice on file gets flagged against incoming shipments automatically, rather than relying on a rights holder spotting each shipment manually.
A parallel regime exists for pharmaceuticals — the Drugs Act 1976 contains its own counterfeit-drug provisions, relevant where a brand’s trade dress or packaging is being copied on medicine rather than ordinary consumer goods.
Online and marketplace infringement. The same underlying principles extend to social media and e-commerce listings, where counterfeit goods and misleading brand use often surface first, well before they show up physically in a market. Fast, well-documented takedown action — screenshots, purchase records, and a clear paper trail — tends to be the most effective first step here, often faster than a full court process for stopping the immediate harm while a longer-term strategy is worked out.
A registered mark isn’t self-enforcing, and a few habits meaningfully reduce risk over the life of a registration:
None of these disputes arose under Pakistani law, but the underlying lessons translate directly, and they illustrate just how far litigation cost and reputational risk can run once a name is adopted carelessly.
3M v. 3N. A materials manufacturer used the mark “3N” on products distinct enough, on paper, from 3M’s own range. The court still found infringement — the well-known brand 3M’s distinctiveness and reputation were strong enough that even meaningful product differences didn’t prevent a finding of mimicking. Verdict: in 3M’s favour.
Academy Awards v. GoDaddy. A five-year cybersquatting dispute over dozens of domain names resembling Academy Awards trademarks, registered through GoDaddy as domain registrar. The court found GoDaddy hadn’t acted in good faith-defeating bad faith with intent to profit itself, limiting the liability of an intermediary registrar rather than the actual domain registrants. Verdict: in GoDaddy’s favour.
Louis Vuitton v. Louis Vuiton Dak. A South Korean fried chicken restaurant adopted a name and monogram-style packaging mirroring Louis Vuitton’s, in a completely unrelated industry. The court sided with the luxury brand, finding the resemblance to the famous name and imagery too close to be coincidental, with further penalties following after an inadequate name change attempt. Verdict: in Louis Vuitton’s favour.
Starbucks v. Freddocino. A café began selling a drink marketed under a name closely echoing Starbucks’ Frappuccino, an existing registered product name. The dispute settled before reaching a full trial, with the smaller business moving away from the conflicting name. Verdict: settled.
Segway v. Swagway (and Razor). Hoverboard makers using similar-sounding names to the established Segway brand faced suits alleging a likelihood of confusion between the products. The dispute was ultimately settled, with a forced rebrand following for the smaller competitor. Verdict: settled, rebrand required.
Nestlé v. Cadbury. Cadbury sought to register a specific shade of purple as a colour mark covering a broad range of chocolate products. On appeal, the court found the description of the mark too vague and the claim overly broad to meet the precision a registrable mark requires, and struck down the earlier registration. Verdict: in Nestlé’s favour on that particular application.
Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels (VIP Products). A dog-toy maker sold a chew toy styled closely on the Jack Daniel’s bottle, marketed as parody and raising a free expression defense. On appeal, the higher court held that using another’s trade dress as your own product’s source identifier isn’t automatically shielded just because it’s also a joke — the parody defense doesn’t disappear, but it doesn’t apply at the threshold stage either. Verdict: sent back for full analysis on the merits, a partial win for Jack Daniel’s on the legal question actually argued.
Adidas v. Forever 21. A dispute over Forever 21’s use of stripe patterns closely resembling Adidas’ three-stripe mark, among other common design elements. The parties resolved the matter through a privately settled agreement, with undisclosed terms. Verdict: settled privately.
Ferrari v. Philipp Plein. A fashion designer posted social content featuring a Ferrari-branded vehicle in a clearly commercial-style use, without authorisation. Courts found this went beyond incidental appearance and granted an injunction against the unauthorized use of the branded product imagery for promotional purposes. Verdict: in Ferrari’s favour.
The preventive theme running through all of these is the same one that shows up in almost every dispute we handle locally: the cost of a proper trademark clearance searching exercise before adopting a mark is a rounding error compared to the cost of a dispute after the fact — commonly a fraction of even modest litigation figures, let alone the larger sums large brands end up spending when a name is adopted carelessly and defended stubbornly afterward.
Most infringement disputes we see on the defending side trace back to a handful of avoidable causes, not bad faith:
The root cause in nearly every one of these is the same: treating trademark clearance as a formality rather than as the actual due-diligence step it is.
Based in Karachi and serving clients across Sindh and nationally, we combine courtroom experience with practical, commercially-minded advice. Our work includes:
Every engagement starts with an honest assessment: what the facts actually support, what it will realistically cost, and how long it’s likely to take — delivered as cost-effective service, not litigation for its own sake. We’d rather tell a client where a claim is weak than take on a case that doesn’t serve their interests. Consider this an invitation to call before, not after, a dispute escalates.
Book a Free Consultation | +92 310 2143511 | info@khatriattorneys.com
Do I need a registered trademark to sue for infringement in Pakistan?
No. A registered mark gives a stronger position and a more straightforward path to sue, but unregistered owners with genuine goodwill can still bring a passing off action within the area where the mark is actually used or would reasonably expand.
What remedies can I seek against an infringer?
Civil relief — injunctions, damages, and account of profits — alongside criminal proceedings and administrative measures including customs measures against infringing imports. Most serious matters against a determined infringer combine more than one track.
Is there a time limit for filing a claim?
Yes. The five-year acquiescence rule can bar a claim against a later mark if you knew about the conflicting use and didn’t object in time, subject to the bad-faith exception if the later registration itself was obtained dishonestly.
Which forum hears these cases?
IP Tribunals hold exclusive jurisdiction over most infringement and passing-off suits, with the Sindh High Court handling higher-value matters originating in this region, plus appellate matters on appeal from Tribunal decisions.
Can conduct outside Pakistan support an infringement claim here?
It can, where manufacturing, sale, or advertising connected to that conduct has a genuine link to Pakistan — a connection given further treaty grounding through TRIPS and the Paris Convention.
What if someone accuses my business of infringement?
You may have valid defenses — prior use, fair use, or unreasonable delay by the claimant among them — and getting early legal advice before you respond, rather than after, generally makes the biggest difference to how the dispute plays out.
How long does an infringement case actually take?
A contested infringement case running through full trial can take roughly 2–6 years; an urgent injunction application can sometimes move in as little as 2–6 months where the facts support genuine urgency.
What does it cost to bring a case?
Figures vary by complexity, but contested matters commonly run from around US5,000onthelighterenduptoUS25,000 or more for a heavily contested case, with only limited cost recovery even when you win.
Can I use mediation or arbitration instead of court?
Only where a pre-existing agreement already provides for arbitration or mediation — otherwise, resolving a trademark dispute outside court remains relatively uncommon in Pakistan.
What can Customs actually do about counterfeit imports?
The Tribunal and Customs authorities can detain, and where infringement is confirmed, order forfeiture or destruction of goods treated as prohibited goods at the border.
Can a licensee sue on my behalf?
In some cases, yes — a licensee can join or bring proceedings under specific conditions set out in the licence agreement, though this isn’t automatic.
Can directors be personally liable for a company’s infringement?
Yes, where it’s shown the offence occurred with a director’s consent, connivance, or through clear neglect — the company’s own liability doesn’t automatically shield the individuals responsible for the decision.