The majority judgment in Zaheer-ud-Din invoked the trademark law to argue that Islamic principles and practices can be denied to Ahmadis on the analogy of trademark law. Abdul Qadeer J cited Indian and Pakistani trademark Laws and penal code and observed:

One would hate to believe that Abdul Qadeer J considered faith a salable commodity. Trademark law does not apply to deeply held religious epithets & practices. Faith and religion, worship and devotional acts are sublime and spiritual and are so personal between God and man, that no mundane, physical or commercial give and take or sale and purchase is conceivable. Who can claim monopoly or trademark on eternal verities and universal concepts, ideas, gifts and bounties of mother nature, or word of God meant for the whole humanity. It is an absurdity to apply trademark law to religion.

Coming to the material aspect, it needs to be appreciated that the trademark law protects the commercial interest of the manufacturer or designer. Only the originator, manufacturer or designer can claim the exclusive right against another manufacturer or designer. Abdul Qadeer J surely does not believe that the mainstream Muslims of any denomination whatsoever are the designers, originators or manufacturers of Islam. The origin of Islam is divine and universal and the prophet of Islam is mercy for entire universe. According to the Muslim belief, even the Holy Prophet (SAS) is not the originator, inventor or the author of Qur’an, which is literally the word of God revealed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad(SAS). No one can claim trademark of any religion, which is of divine origin and has been vouchsafed and bestowed upon mankind by God.

Then again, the trademark relates to the visible marks, words or names and not to the natural constituents and contents. Coca Cola cannot claim that no other company producing beverages can use water, sugar, caffeine, preservatives, additives or other ingredients. Juices and Jams of another manufacturer cannot be sold under the name of Michels Juices or Michels Jams. But that does not preclude any other manufacturer from the use of fruits, vegetables and other ingredients used by Michels. The contents and the ingredients are nature’s bounty and a universal heritage. No one can claim a copyright or trademark over them. A perfumer may bottle and sell, rose, lavender or sandal under a trade name but cannot monopolize the fragrance of rose lavender or sandal.

Even if the trademark law could by any stretch be applied to religion, it would at best apply to the name of Islam. The name having been denied to Ahmadis, the content, the teachings and the practices, which Ahmadis believe to have been ordained by God cannot be denied to them by any self-styled ecclesiastical or political hierarchy on the analogy of trademark.

There are many schisms in Islam giving rise to different sects. These sects may be viewed as different versions of Islam with varying degree of emphasis on any particular aspect or principle of Islam. On the analogy of Abdul Qadeer J. Shia, Sunni, Daobandi, Barelvi, Ahle-Hadith, Ahle-Qur’an etc are all different brands of Islam. There are also Saudi, Egyptian and Iranian versions and interpretations of Islam. Following the analogy of Abdul Qadeer J. in the light of the observations made above, it would appear that Islam is the universal heritage and bounty of God and these different sects have adopted their different Brand Names for the different formulae of the same ingredients derived from the same source i.e. Qra’an and Sunnah. If there can be 72 Brand Names why not 73? Who can claim a monopoly on the teachings of Qur’an? Can Saudi’s claim exclusive right against Egyptians or Iranians or can Deobandis do so and exclude Barelvis and so on?

But it seems that such fanatic claims are not the monopoly of Pakistani clergy alone. Such fundamentalist fanatics may be found elsewhere also. But such claims have never been accepted. American experience can be cited here with some benefit.

A group of eminent lawyers and university professors of Minnesota USA, referring to this aspect of Zaheer-ud-Din cited as many as five cases from the American Jurisdiction where such claims of monopoly over some religion or religious practice were brought to the court. In each case, the court rejected the claim. The Minnesota lawyers cited the following cases :