Background of the case:

The Commission received a complaint alleging that unauthorized entities were using the registered collective marks and its registered name of the Complainant which constituted a prima facie violation of Section 10(2) (d) of the Act.

It was further alleged that the said actions were not only misleading consumers about their services but were also capable of harming business interest of the Complainant, in violation of Section 10 (2) (a) & (b) of the Act. An Enquiry was initiated to probe into the matter.

The Enquiry Report concluded that the use of the Complainants project name and collective marks was without any due authorization and in violation of Section 10 of the Act. Furthermore, the actions of the Respondents were not only misleading consumers but were also capable of harming the business interest of the Complainant, in violation of Section 10 2 (a) & (b) of the Act.

Issues:

i) Whether the Complaint is instituted in accordance with the law?

ii) Whether can Commission proceed in the matter while there is pending civil/criminal litigation between the parties at various forums?

iii) Whether the enquiry committee proceeded with malafide intentions and conclusion of the Enquiry Report is biased?

iv) Whether the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 10 of the Act?

Foreign Judgment relied upon:

i) Hoffman-La Roche [1978] E.C.R. 1139

ii) Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2002] ECR 1-0000

iii) Arsenal Football Club v. Matthew Reed [2003] RPC 9

iv) Loendersloot [1997] E.C.R. I-6227

Order:

While the Respondents submitted a written reply, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondents, and the Commission proceeded ex-parte.

The Commission held that the complaint had been validly instituted. The Respondents had asserted in the reply that the legal advisor of the Complainant was not allowed to carry on any other business and that the same was in violation of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Commission held that matter was outside its purview and was as not competent to give any findings with respect to the violation of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973

The Commission in its order noted the importance of a balanced and well-rounded education, for the growth of the country and its people. It was held that the Respondents had engaged in deceptive marketing practices prohibited under Section 10 (2)(a),(b)&(d) read with Section 10(1) of the Act.

The Commission also noted that the pendency of several suits inter se between the parties do not bar the Commission from giving its finding regarding a violation of Section 10 of the Competition, as there is no injunction/stay barring the Commission from doing so, and which is the exclusive authority of the Commission.

The Commission held that the advertising and marketing campaign of the Respondent contain both misleading claims which lack reasonable basis and impinge upon the intellectual property rights of the Complainant with respect to the registered trademark of the Complainant.

Therefore, a penalty of PKR 5, 000,000 (Rupees Five Million Only) was imposed on the proprietor of the Respondents institutions, collectively. A further amount of PKR 500,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand Only) was also imposed on the Respondents for knowingly abusing, impeding and obstructing the proceedings before the Commission. The Proprietor of the Respondent Institutions was also directed to publish in at least two national daily newspapers that they had no affiliation or association with the Complaint within sixty (60) days from the receipt of this Order and to refrain from indulging in any form of deceptive marketing practices in the future and is forewarned that repeat violation may attract further strict penalties as per the Law.

Current Status:

Pursuant to the order of the Commission, an appeal was filed against the same at the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal in the matter found it appropriate to suspend the order.