ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the competitor of a popular beverage Rooh Afza to sell its product till July 11.

Rooh Afza is in a dispute with a competitor Rooh-i-Samar for alleged violation of trademark. However, the makers of Rooh-e-Samar, competitor of Rooh Afza, claim their product is very different therefore the consumers don’t mix up both.

As per the direction of the court, the samples of both manufacturers were presented before a two-member bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Maqbool Baqir, which heard an appeal against the Sindh High Court’s May 3 judgment.

The high court in its order had held that the trademark, trade dress and get-up by Rooh-i-Samar infringed upon common law right of Rooh Afza. It had also restrained the makers of Rooh-i-Samar from infringing on the label of Rooh Afza in any manner by selling, marketing, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise using on its syrup trademark Rooh-i-Samar either alone or in conjunction with any other mark, words, figures or devices.

Justice Ata asked a senior counsel Munir Paracha, who was present in the court, that can he differentiate between the two brands. He said both the beverages – Rooh Afza and Rooh-e-Samar – look almost the same. Upon that the judge said if a senior counsel can distinguish then how ordinary citizens would find the difference. Abdul Rauf Rohaila, representing Rooh-e-Samar, informed the court that the sale of Rooh Afza in 2015 was around Rs4 billion while his client brand made business of Rs700 million. “They are far ahead of us in sale then how can we compete to them,” he said.

He informed the court that they have produced stock for Ramazan therefore asked the court to allow them to sell it. The court accepted the request and permitted sale of Rooh-e-Samar till July 11.

According to the counsel of Hamdard Laboratories, which sell red syrup under the name of Rooh Afza for decades, said their brand was registered under the Trademark Act, 1940, in British India on Aug 3, 1942, and eight different versions of the trademark by using trademark “Rooh” had been regularly registered from 1961 to 1984.

He said being a household name used for over half a century the trademark of Rooh Afza has acquired extreme popularity, which also attracts newcomers to allegedly disguise their trademarks and trade-dress similar or confusingly similar to that of the one produced by Hamdard Laboratories. The hearing is adjourned till July 12.