Intellectual Property

The Intellectual Property Tribunal in Pakistan: Jurisdiction, Procedure, Injunctions and Appeals from Karachi

For decades, large trademark and copyright suits in Karachi were filed on the original side of the Sindh High Court. That habit has ended. A dedicated IP Tribunal now sits in Karachi, and the Sindh High Court has spent the last few years returning or transferring IP suits to it. Anyone looking for the best IP lawyer in Karachi to stop an infringer should first be sure the plaint is going to the right forum, because a suit filed in the High Court can come back years later with nothing decided. This guide explains how the Tribunals were created, what they alone can hear, how a case actually runs, and how to appeal.

How the IP Tribunals were set up

The Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 (the IPO Act) created the Intellectual Property Organization (IPO-Pakistan) as the single administrative home for trademarks, patents, copyright and designs. It also provided for specialised courts. Section 16(1) allows the Federal Government, by notification in the official Gazette, to establish as many Tribunals as it considers necessary, appoint a Presiding Officer for each, and fix the territorial limits of each Tribunal.

The Act came into force from 28 August 2012, but section 1(3) held back sections 15 to 19 until the Federal Government notified a date. Two dates matter in Sindh:

• 2 December 2014: the IP Tribunal for Sindh was established by Notification No. P.15(1)/2013-A-IV, as recorded by the Sindh High Court.
• 29 December 2015: S.R.O. 1330(I)/2015 brought into force section 15, parts of section 16, and sections 17, 18 and 19. The Sindh High Court treats this as the date from which the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, and the automatic transfer of pending suits, took effect.

The Ministry of Law and Justice lists Tribunals working at Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Under section 16(4), a Presiding Officer is appointed by the Federal Government after consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, and must have been a High Court judge, be or have been a District and Sessions Judge, or be an advocate qualified for appointment as a High Court judge. Where more than one Tribunal exists, section 16(3) lets the High Court transfer a case from one Tribunal to another in the interest of justice or for the convenience of parties or witnesses.

What only the Tribunal can hear

Three provisions do the work. Section 18(1) requires that "all suits and other civil proceedings regarding infringement of intellectual property laws shall be instituted and tried in the Tribunal". Section 18(2) gives the Tribunal "exclusive jurisdiction to try any offence under intellectual property laws". Section 17(4) adds that no other court shall have or exercise jurisdiction over any matter within the Tribunal's remit. Section 39 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.

"Intellectual property laws" is defined by section 2(h) as the laws in the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule covers the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and the other principal IP statutes, together with the property-mark and counterfeiting offences in sections 478 to 489 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Courts have applied the Tribunal's jurisdiction to:

• Trademark infringement, even with passing off. The Supreme Court held in Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan, 2022 SCMR 979 that where infringement is alleged the suit must be brought before the Tribunal, even if passing off is pleaded alongside it.
• Copyright suits. In Suit No. 144 of 2021 (order of 29 March 2024), a copyright claim over a documentary screening was returned to the Tribunal.
• Groundless threats actions. A Division Bench described it as "the better view" that a suit under section 52 of the Trade Marks Ordinance falls within section 18(1) (High Court Appeal No. 264 of 2021, 17 January 2025).
• Suits attacking a registration. In Suit No. 1495 of 2024 (14 January 2025), a suit challenging another party's registered mark was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the Tribunal.

Two areas stay outside. A pure passing-off action, with no infringement of a registered right pleaded, was left open by the Supreme Court's distinction between passing off "simpliciter" and passing off coupled with infringement. And applications to revoke, invalidate or rectify a registration under sections 73, 80 and 96 of the Trade Marks Ordinance are not infringement proceedings; the Sindh High Court has kept those with the Registrar or the High Court, as explained in our case note on the invalidity forum and our guide to non-use cancellation and rectification.

The Karachi question: Sindh High Court or IP Tribunal?

Karachi was a special case because the Sindh High Court, unlike most High Courts, exercises original civil jurisdiction over high-value suits in the district. IP owners used it for speed and for the seniority of the bench. For several years after 2015 practice was uneven. An administrative note issued in 2017 had treated passing-off suits, alone or combined with infringement, as staying in the High Court.

The position was reset in M/s. Sadiq & Suharwardy v. Ismail Industries Ltd. (Suit No. 200 of 2020 and connected matters, order announced 10 January 2024). The court held that the 2017 note was "neither a judicial order nor a judgment", that the IPO Act sets no pecuniary threshold so the value of a suit cannot keep it in the High Court, and that section 39 makes the Act prevail over the Trade Marks Ordinance where they conflict. It sorted pending matters into three groups:

Group	Matters	Result
A	IP suits filed on or before 28 December 2015	Transferred to the IP Tribunal under section 17(6), continuing from the stage reached
B	IP suits filed on or after 29 December 2015	Plaint returned so the plaintiff can file before the Tribunal
C	Revocation, removal or cancellation proceedings	Remain in the High Court

A Division Bench adopted the same framework on 17 January 2025 in High Court Appeal No. 264 of 2021 and connected appeals. It also recorded the effect of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023, under which amended section 117 of the Ordinance provides that no suit for infringement and enforcement of such rights "shall be instituted in any Court except an IP Tribunal". For new infringement suits, the debate in Karachi is effectively over.

The practical cost of the old uncertainty is visible in the case lists: suits filed in the early 2000s were sent to the Tribunal in 2024 to continue there. A returned plaint can seek exclusion of the time spent in the wrong court under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, but the delay itself cannot be recovered.

How a civil case runs before the Tribunal

Section 17(1)(a) gives the Tribunal, in its civil jurisdiction, all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and section 17(2) applies the Code wherever the Act is silent. In practice an IP suit before the Tribunal looks like any well-prepared civil suit:

1. Plaint setting out the right (registration certificate, copyright evidence, proof of prior use), the infringing act, the defendant's link to Karachi or the Tribunal's territory, and the reliefs: permanent injunction, damages or an account of profits, delivery up, and costs.
2. Application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, often with a request for an ad-interim order before notice where delay would defeat the purpose.
3. Written statement by the defendant, frequently with a counter-attack on the plaintiff's registration. Because the Tribunal does not decide revocation or invalidity applications, that counter-attack may run in a separate forum at the same time.
4. Issues, evidence and arguments, with witnesses examined under the Code. Under section 17(3), Tribunal proceedings are judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, so false evidence and contempt in the face of the Tribunal carry criminal consequences.

Suits transferred under section 17(6) continue from the stage they had reached, and section 17(7) relieves the Tribunal of any duty to re-hear witnesses already examined. The Tribunal's orders also bind the customs machinery: in C.P. No. D-533 of 2020 (6 December 2022) a Division Bench directed the customs IPR directorate to disregard departmental and Customs Appellate Tribunal orders that conflicted with an IP Tribunal injunction, describing infringement disputes as "exclusively adjudiciable" by the Tribunal. For the customs side of enforcement, see our page on counterfeit goods.

Interim injunctions: where most IP cases are won or lost

Most IP disputes in Pakistan are effectively decided at the interim stage. A defendant restrained for two or three years while the suit proceeds will usually rebrand or settle; a plaintiff refused an injunction often watches the copy entrench itself. The Tribunal applies the familiar Order XXXIX test of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, and the quality of the first filing matters more than anything said later.

Points that repeatedly decide interim applications before the Tribunal:

• Delay. An owner who knew of the copy for a year and did nothing will struggle to show urgency. Date-stamped evidence of when the infringement was discovered helps.
• Proof of the right. A registration certificate in force, renewal records and the chain of title for any assignment should be in the first filing, not promised later.
• Proof of the infringing act. Test purchases with receipts, photographs of packaging, and online listings captured with dates are more persuasive than general allegations.
• Undertakings and scope. A narrowly drawn order, aimed at the infringing mark or work rather than the defendant's whole business, is easier to obtain and to defend on appeal.

Our general guide to interim injunctions in Pakistan covers the test in more detail, and the IP practice page summarises the final remedies the Tribunal can grant.

IP offences and criminal complaints

The Tribunal is also a criminal court. Section 17(1)(b) gives it the powers of a Court of Sessions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and section 18(2) gives it exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the scheduled IP laws. These include the offences in Chapter XIII of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 (for example, applying a false trade description to goods or falsely representing a mark as registered), the offences in the Copyright Ordinance, 1962, and the property-mark and counterfeiting offences in sections 478 to 489 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

How a criminal case reaches the Tribunal is less settled than the civil side, and recent Sindh High Court orders pull in different directions:

• In Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 364 of 2019 (27 November 2023), the court held that the FIA could not register an FIR directly on a copyright complaint. Reading section 13 with section 39 of the IPO Act, it held that complaints of this kind go to IPO-Pakistan, which refers them to the relevant law enforcement agency.
• In Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 697 of 2024 (15 July 2024), a Karachi magistrate had returned a police report for presentation before the IP Tribunal under section 66-A of the Copyright Ordinance. The High Court set that direction aside and sent the case back to the ordinary trial court, noting that no copyright owner had come forward to claim the right on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction depends.

The working lesson is that a criminal route needs a rights holder who is prepared to stand behind the complaint, and that the route (through IPO-Pakistan, the police or a direct complaint) should be chosen with the forum question in mind from the outset. In most commercial cases a civil suit with an interim injunction remains the faster and more controllable remedy; criminal proceedings are best kept for organised counterfeiting where seizure and deterrence matter more than compensation.

Appeals to the High Court: thirty days, no excuses

Section 19 provides that a person aggrieved by a final judgment and order of the Tribunal may appeal to the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal within thirty days. For the Karachi Tribunal, that is the Sindh High Court.

The Sindh High Court enforces that deadline strictly. In Muhammad Amir v. Muhammad Sarfraz (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 57 of 2017, judgment of 4 June 2018), an appeal against a Tribunal order was filed after the thirty days had run. The court dismissed it as time-barred, holding that the special period in section 19 prevails over the general law of limitation, that time spent pursuing a constitutional petition against a related customs order did not stop the clock, that section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not rescue an appeal filed in the wrong forum, and that wrong advice from counsel does not extend limitation (relying on 1991 SCMR 1841).

One question deserves care. Section 19 speaks of a "final judgment and order", yet appeals have been filed against interim injunction orders of the Tribunal, including in the case just mentioned, which was decided on limitation without ruling on that point. We have not found a reported Sindh High Court decision that squarely settles whether, or on what footing, an interlocutory order of the Tribunal is appealable. The safe course is to treat every adverse order as if the thirty-day clock is running and to file within it, while pleading the basis of appealability expressly.

Practical checklist for Karachi rights holders

• File infringement in the Tribunal. Infringement, combined infringement and passing off, copyright infringement and groundless-threats claims belong there. Filing them in the High Court invites a return of the plaint.
• Keep register challenges separate. Revocation, invalidity and rectification follow the Trade Marks Ordinance's own forum rules. Plan both tracks together, because the defendant will often attack your registration in response.
• Check the Tribunal's territory. Territorial limits are fixed by notification under section 16(1). Plead the facts that connect the dispute to Karachi: the defendant's place of business, sales or the place where the infringing goods are found.
• Prepare the injunction file before filing. Registration, chain of title, test purchases and dated evidence of discovery should all be ready on day one.
• Diary every adverse order. Thirty days under section 19 is short, and the High Court has refused to stretch it.
• Use the Tribunal's order at the border. An injunction can be served on the customs IPR directorate, and the Sindh High Court has held that it prevails over conflicting departmental orders.

Common questions

This article is general information about Pakistani law and procedure, not legal advice for any specific matter. If this touches on something you're currently facing, get in touch and we'll advise on your facts directly.