>
TaxCalc.pk
FY 2026-27
Understand grounds for trademark refusal in Pakistan: Section 14 absolute grounds, Section 17 relative grounds, examination reports, and response strategies.
By Syed Asad Hussain Zaidi · 8 September 2026
Author Note / Last Updated: Updated for 2026–27 by Syed Asad Hussain Zaidi | Advocate High Court | Senior Corporate & IP Advisory Counsel
Filing an application for trademark registration via Form TM-1 with the Trade Marks Registry (TMR) of IPO-Pakistan initiates substantive examination. Examiners assess every mark to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and public order before publication in the Trade Marks Journal.
During this stage, many applicants receive an official Examination Report / Show Cause Notice from the Examiner of Trade Marks under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2004. Receiving an examination report is a standard procedural step requiring the applicant to submit legal arguments or documentary evidence to demonstrate registrability.
This legal guide breaks down the two statutory categories of trademark objections in Pakistan—Absolute Grounds (Section 14) and Relative Grounds (Section 17) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001—and outlines established strategies to overcome examiner objections.
When Form TM-1 is submitted, an Examiner of Trade Marks evaluates the proposed mark through two statutory stages:
| Examination Stage | Controlling Provision | Statutory Assessment Question | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Stage 1: Absolute Grounds | Section 14, Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 | Is the mark inherently distinctive, or is it descriptive, generic, deceptive, or contrary to public order? | | Stage 2: Relative Grounds | Section 17, Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 | Does the mark conflict with an earlier registered trademark or prior pending application in the same or related classes? |
Where the Examiner raises an objection under either stage, an official Examination Report / Show Cause Notice is issued under Section 27 and Rule 28.
Section 14 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 governs Absolute Grounds for Refusal, which concern the inherent nature of the sign itself:
A trademark must distinguish the goods or services of one enterprise from those of another. If a mark is too simple, generic, or common, it is deemed devoid of distinctive character.
Marks consisting exclusively of signs designating the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, or geographical origin of goods cannot be monopolized by a single trader.
Words or symbols that have become standard in current commercial language cannot be registered as private trademarks.
A mark that deceives the public regarding the nature, quality, or geographical origin of the goods is barred from registration.
Section 17 governs Relative Grounds for Refusal, addressing conflicts with earlier rights on the register:
A proposed mark identical to an earlier registered mark or pending application for identical goods or services will be refused.
Where a proposed mark is similar to an earlier trademark and covers identical or similar goods, the Examiner assesses whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers of average intelligence.
Even where goods fall in different Nice classes, a mark conflicting with an established well-known mark will be refused if its use would take unfair advantage of, or dilute, the established reputation.
Under Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2004, applicants must adhere to the following procedural workflow:
Practitioners utilize targeted legal mechanisms to address examination objections:
If an objection asserts descriptiveness, the applicant may establish that long-standing commercial use has conferred distinctiveness under the proviso to Section 14(1):
If a composite trademark contains a distinctive logo alongside a descriptive word:
To overcome relative grounds, demonstrate that the marks differ visually, phonetically, and conceptually, or that the trade channels and consumer demographics are distinct.
Once the Examiner or Registrar accepts the explanation (either via written reply or following a hearing), the application is ordered to be published in the monthly Trade Marks Journal.
Yes. If the Registrar issues a final order of refusal, the applicant may appeal to the High Court under Section 114 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 within the prescribed statutory limitation period.
Legal & Statutory Notice: The information provided in this publication is for general educational, academic, and statutory informational purposes only under the relevant laws of Pakistan (including the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Companies Act, 2017, and the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001). This content does not constitute formal legal, financial, or tax advice. For specific assessments, consult a licensed Advocate or qualified tax professional.
