5 million fine on used international company logo and name by competition tribunal , upheld by Supreme Court .

اس مقدمے کا بنیادی مسئلہ یہ تھا کہ **M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd** نے **اسٹاربکس** کے نام اور لوگو کا استعمال کیا، جو کہ بین الاقوامی سطح پر رجسٹرڈ ہے اور پاکستان میں بھی محفوظ ہے۔ اسٹاربکس کارپوریشن USA نے مسابقتی کمیشن آف پاکستان کے ذریعے شکایت کی کہ اپیل کنندہ نے اسٹاربکس کے نام اور لوگو کو بغیر اجازت استعمال کیا، جس کی وجہ سے مقامی مسابقت پر منفی اثر پڑا ہے۔

مسابقتی کمیشن نے اپیل کنندہ پر پانچ ملین روپے کا جرمانہ عائد کیا اور عدم تعمیل کی صورت میں روزانہ ایک لاکھ روپے اضافی جرمانے کا حکم دیا۔ اپیل کنندہ نے اس فیصلے کو ٹریبونل میں چیلنج کیا، جس نے جرمانے کی رقم تو بڑھا دی لیکن روزانہ جرمانے کو کم کر دیا۔

اپیل کنندہ نے اس فیصلے پر اعتراض کیا، خاص طور پر اس بات پر کہ چونکہ اسٹاربکس کے نام اور لوگو کا پاکستان میں کوئی فعال مقام نہیں ہے، اس لیے ان کا استعمال پاکستان میں مسابقت کو متاثر نہیں کرتا۔ لیکن عدالت نے اس موقف کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے اپیل کو خارج کر دیا اور ٹریبونل کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan

Civil Appeal No.1011 of 2024

(On appeal against the judgment dated 29.05.2024 of the Competition

Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 45/2023)

M/s Options International (SMC-Pvt.) Ltd through its CEO

Appellant

Versus

The Competition Commission of Pakistan through its

Registrar and another

Respondents

For the Appellant:

Mr. Taimoor Aslam Khan, ASC

For Respondent No. 1:

Mr. Hafiz Naeem, Legal Advisor

For Respondent No. 2:

Not represented

Date of Hearing:

07.08.2024

ORDER

Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. This appeal has been filed under section 44 of the

Competition Act, 2010 (‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 29 May

2024 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad (‘the

Tribunal’). The judgment of the Tribunal is unanimous; two learned

Members agreeing with the learned Chairperson.

The Competition Commission of Pakistan (‘the Commission’) had

imposed a penalty of five million rupees on the appellant and ordered

further additional penalty of one hundred thousand rupees per day from

the date of passing of the order in case of non-compliance.

The appellant had assailed before the Tribunal the above order

dated 19 December 2018 passed by the Commission. The Tribunal

decided the appeal by enhancing the penalty amount from five million to

six million rupees but reduced the per day penalty amount to five

thousand rupees from one hundred thousand rupees with effect from 3

December 2021, which was the date from which the Tribunal had become

functional. We inquired from learned counsel which judgment, whether of

CA No. 1011 of 2024 2

the Commission or the Tribunal, favours the appellant, and he stated that

the one of the Tribunal.

We also inquired from the learned counsel whether the appellant

disputes that the name Starbucks and logo are registered trademarks, and

he conceded that both the said name and logo are registered abroad and

in Pakistan. The matter before the Commission, and then before the

Tribunal, was with regard to the use of the Starbucks name and logo by

the appellant and selling its products under such name and style. A

complaint from the proprietor of the said tradename and trademark,

Starbucks Corporation USA (respondent No. 2), was received by the

Commission which took action on it, and passed the abovementioned

order.

The learned counsel contended that the Act only applies to

‘undertakings and all actions or matters that take place in Pakistan and

distort competition within Pakistan’, as stipulated in sub-section (3) of

section 1 of the Act. However, he submitted, since the respondent No. 2

does not have any outlet in Pakistan, nor has authorized anyone to use its

name, logo and products in Pakistan, therefore, the appellant was not in

competition with the respondent No. 2, its authorized user(s) and/or its

products.

We cannot bring ourselves to agree with the said submission, which

has no substance. The appellant had put itself forward by selling its own

products under the international brand name Starbucks and by using its

logo, which must have had the effect of distorting competition within

Pakistan because a local vendor selling similar products, as those being

sold by the appellant, would be at a serious disadvantage and not able to

compete therewith since the unsuspecting public would believe,

understand or perceive the same to be the genuine products of the

respondent No. 2.

The learned counsel then objected to the levy of the said penalties.

We inquired from the learned counsel whether the law authorizes the

penalties which had been imposed and he conceded that it did under

CA No. 1011 of 2024 3

section 38 of the Act. Therefore, it is not understandable how the same

can be objected to.

No other point has been urged which may persuade us to take a

view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is

dismissed, but with no order as to costs as the respondent No. 2 did not

enter appearance. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent No. 2 for

information.

Chief Justice

Judge

Islamabad

7 August 2024

Atif/

Approved for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.