Intellectual Property

Cancelling a Trademark in Pakistan: Non-Use Revocation, Invalidity and Rectification of the Register

The Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 gives third parties three ways to remove or correct an entry on the Register: revocation, a declaration of invalidity and rectification, each with its own grounds, applicant and forum. The most useful in commercial practice is revocation for non-use, because dormant registrations routinely block new applications. Anyone searching for the best trademark lawyer in Karachi to clear a blocking registration should first ask a narrower question: has the owner actually used that mark in Pakistan within the last five years?

Three remedies, three different questions

The three remedies are often lumped together as “cancellation”, but they attack different things and produce different results. Choosing the wrong one wastes months.

Remedy	Provision	What it asks	Effect if it succeeds
Revocation	Section 73	Has something happened since registration, such as five years of non-use, the mark becoming a generic trade name, or the mark misleading the public?	Rights end from the date of the application, or an earlier date if the grounds existed earlier (section 73(6))
Declaration of invalidity	Section 80	Was the mark registrable at the time? For example, was it barred under section 14, or did it conflict with an earlier mark or earlier right under section 17?	The registration is treated as never made, to that extent, though past and closed transactions are not disturbed (section 80(7))
Rectification	Section 96	Does the Register contain an error or omission?	The error is treated as never made, unless the Registrar or court directs otherwise (section 96(3))

Rectification is narrower than many people assume. The proviso to section 96(1) says it cannot be used for any matter affecting the validity of the registration. A wrong address, a misspelt proprietor name or an omitted licence entry can be fixed this way; a mark that was descriptive when registered cannot. Name and address changes by the proprietor or a licensee are handled separately under section 96(4).

Since the 2023 amendments, each remedy also has its own forum rule, discussed below. In a non-use case, whether the owner can prove genuine use in Pakistan in the relevant five years usually decides the outcome.

Revocation for non-use: the five-year rule

Section 73(1) sets out two non-use grounds. Under clause (a), a registration can be revoked if, within five years following the date the registration procedure was completed, the mark has not been put to bona fide use in Pakistan by the proprietor or an authorised user for the registered goods or services, and there are no proper reasons for non-use. Under clause (b), revocation is available where such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years, again without proper reasons.

Four features of the section matter in practice:

• The clock starts at completion of registration, not filing. A mark that took three years to register cannot be attacked under clause (a) until five years after the registration was completed.
• Late use does not always save the owner. Section 73(3) can save a registration where use starts or resumes after the five years but before the revocation application is made, but such use is regarded only if preparations for it began before the proprietor “became aware that the application is made”. The wording is awkward, and it is not settled whether a warning letter or a known dispute is enough to fix the owner with awareness, so it pays not to alert the owner before filing.
• Revocation can be partial. Under section 73(5), if the mark has been used for some registered goods but not others, it can be cut back to the goods actually traded. A registration for a whole class covering one product line is a common target.
• Non-use is not the only ground. Clauses (c) and (d) allow revocation where, through the proprietor's acts or inactivity, the mark has become the common name in the trade for the product, or where its use is liable to mislead the public about the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services.

What counts as genuine use, and what are proper reasons

The Ordinance defines use broadly. Section 3(1)(c) treats a mark as used in relation to goods or services where it appears on packaging or labels, on a signboard or in an advertisement, or on invoices, price lists, catalogues and business papers. Use by a licensee or other person counts as the owner's use where the owner exercises quality control or financial control over that person's trading (section 3(2) and (3)). Under section 5(1), use with additions or alterations that do not substantially affect the identity of the mark can still be treated as use of the registered mark, and section 73(2) makes the same point for revocation. Under section 5(2), applying the mark in Pakistan to goods to be exported counts as use.

The export rule is not theoretical. In Muhammad Shah Kakar v. Intellectual Property Tribunal (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2020, Sindh High Court, judgment dated 3 June 2020) the court relied on section 5(2) in holding that use covers goods made “for export only”. A Karachi exporter whose branded rice or textiles never reach a Pakistani shelf can therefore still be using its mark.

The word “bona fide” is the real battleground. In our reading it means genuine trade aimed at creating or keeping a market, not a handful of sales arranged to protect the registration. We have not found a reported Pakistani decision that defines the term or lists what counts as “proper reasons” for non-use, so each case turns on its facts. Arguments commonly run on obstacles outside the owner's control, for example a pending regulatory approval for a medicine (see our note on drug name registration with DRAP) or an import restriction. A simple change of business plan is unlikely to be enough.

Who may apply: an interested party, not only a person aggrieved

Under the old Trade Marks Act, 1940, removal for non-use (section 37) and rectification (section 46) were open to a “person aggrieved”. The 2001 Ordinance uses different words: an “interested party” may apply for revocation (section 73(4)) or a declaration of invalidity (section 80(4)), and any person “having a sufficient interest” may seek rectification (section 96(1)).

We have not found a reported Pakistani judgment that sets the limits of “interested party”, so it is safest to plead interest concretely. Typical examples are an applicant whose own application has been objected to on the strength of the registered mark, a trader selling the same goods under a similar name who has received a cease-and-desist letter, or a licensee or importer whose business is affected. A bare wish to tidy up the Register is weak. The Registrar also has a separate power under section 80(5) concerning bad-faith registrations, though the version of the amended text reproduced by the Sindh High Court shows that subsection as omitted by the 2023 amendment.

Where to file after the IP Tribunal and the 2023 amendment

Forum is the area most likely to trip up an applicant, because two statutes interact: the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, under which IP Tribunals were set up (the Sindh Tribunal was notified on 2 December 2014). The Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023 then removed references to the District Court and sent infringement suits to the IP Tribunal (amended section 117). For a full account of the Tribunal's role, see our guide to IP Tribunal jurisdiction and procedure.

On cancellation, the current position in Sindh is set by two decisions of the Sindh High Court:

• M/s. Sadiq & Suharwardy v. Ismail Industries Ltd. (Suit No. 200 of 2020 and connected matters, order announced 10 January 2024) transferred or returned infringement suits to the IP Tribunal but kept revocation and cancellation proceedings in the High Court.
• Perwaiz Ahmed Shaikh (late) through legal heirs v. Muhammad Tahir (High Court Appeal No. 289 of 2024, decided 10 February 2025, Division Bench) held that an invalidity application under section 80(4) may be filed directly in the High Court at the applicant's choice, but that revocation under section 73(4) and rectification under section 96(2) must be filed before the Registrar unless proceedings concerning the mark are already pending in court.

So for a straightforward non-use case with no litigation on foot, the application goes to the Registrar of Trade Marks. If an infringement suit about the same mark is already pending, the position is less clear: the Division Bench expressly left open how a High Court application interacts with a suit filed in the IP Tribunal. That uncertainty should be weighed before anything is filed.

Procedure before the Registrar and the burden of proving use

Under rule 68 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2004, applications for revocation, invalidity and rectification are made on Form TM-26 with a statement of grounds, and the opposition timetable in rule 30 is applied to them. The proprietor then files a counter-statement, followed by evidence by affidavit (section 111(1)(b) and rule 78), with a hearing before the Registrar if requested (section 111(2)). The Registrar's decision can be appealed to the High Court under section 114, within two months under rule 85.

Two provisions tilt the field towards the applicant in a non-use case:

• Section 119 provides that where a question arises in civil proceedings about the use of a registered mark, “it shall be for the proprietor to show what use has been made of it”. The applicant need not prove a negative; it must raise the point credibly, and the owner must then produce its invoices, advertising and sales records.
• Rule 68(2) says that the Registrar will not rectify the Register merely because no counter-statement is filed, but makes an exception for non-use: where revocation is sought under section 73(1)(a) or (b) and no counter-statement is filed, the application is to be granted.

The second point matters because many dormant marks belong to foreign companies that have stopped monitoring Pakistan, or to local businesses that have closed. In those cases a properly served application can succeed without a contest.

Time limits that change the strategy: acquiescence and section 44

Invalidity and revocation behave differently with the passage of time. Section 81 provides that the owner of an earlier mark who, with knowledge, has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years in the use of a later registered mark loses the right to seek a declaration of invalidity against it, unless the later mark was applied for in bad faith. Section 44 separately states that, in legal proceedings, the original registration is taken to be valid in all respects once five years have passed from registration, unless it was obtained by fraud or the mark offends section 14(3).

How section 44 sits alongside the invalidity grounds in section 80 has not, so far as we have found, been settled by a reported decision. What is clear is that revocation for non-use does not challenge the original validity of the registration at all; it rests on what the owner has done since. For an old registration, non-use is therefore often the more secure route.

Using non-use revocation to clear a blocking mark, and how owners can protect themselves

When a new application is objected to on the basis of an older registration, the practical sequence we follow is:

1. Investigate quietly first. Check retail, online marketplaces, import records where lawfully available, trade directories and the owner's own website for any sign of use in Pakistan in the last five years.
2. Do not write to the owner before filing. A warning letter can prompt last-minute use, and because the awareness test in section 73(3) is tied to the application itself, the owner may argue that use started after a letter but before filing still counts. Proving when preparations began then becomes a factual fight.
3. Target the goods precisely. Seek revocation for the goods you actually need, relying on partial revocation under section 73(5), rather than the whole registration.
4. Keep your own application alive. Respond to the examination objection, explaining that revocation proceedings are pending, so the application is not abandoned while the Registrar decides.
5. Consider a negotiated outcome. A dormant owner may prefer to assign or surrender the mark (surrender is covered by section 79); see our guide to trademark assignment and licensing.

Brand owners should assume that any registration left idle for five years is exposed. A simple use file defeats most non-use attacks: dated invoices showing the mark and the goods, samples of packaging and labels, advertisements and social media posts aimed at Pakistani customers, distributor or licence agreements showing quality control, and export documents for goods marked in Pakistan. Keep this file by year and by product. It also helps at renewal, because section 35(5) allows the Registrar to call for evidence of use with any renewal after the first; our guide to trademark renewal and restoration explains that stage. For portfolio audits and cancellation actions, see our trademark registration practice.

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.