MALAYSIA: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES THE SCOPE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Recently, the Federal Court of Malaysia took the opportunity to clarify the scope and functions of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Ho Tack Sien & Others v Rotta Research Laboratorium S.p.A & Anor and Rotta Research Laboratorium S.p.A & Anor v Ho Tack Sien & Others are two civil appeals heard jointly by the Federal Court.
We shall refer to the parties as they were before the...
SINGAPORE: AMC IN DISPUTE
In the case of The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims for infringement and passing off.
The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) is a Singapore company. The Plaintiff is in the business of events management, assisting clients in meeting their...
SINGAPORE: MANCHESTER IS MORE THAN A FOOTBALLING CITY
Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid v Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn. Bhd. is an interesting trade mark dispute before the High Court of Singapore. The parties in this case each chose “Manchester” as the name of their respective brand of cigarettes. Both of them registered their trade marks in Singapore with the use of the term “Manchester”.
The Plaintiff, Mr. Jamal...
MALAYSIA: OISHI VS OISHI
This article is based on the decision of High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, which has considered the scope and application of Sections 45 and 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1976 (hereinafter be referred as “the Act”) .
Oishi Group Public Company Limited (hereinafter be referred “the Plaintiff”) is a public company incorporated in Thailand and is in the business of...
MALAYSIA: HANSA PART v HANSA
In the case of Solid Corporation Sdn Bhd v Registrar of Trade Marks Malaysia & Yuen Sun Rubber Manufacturing Co. Sdn Bhd, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur held that Yuen Sun Rubber Manufacturing Co. Sdn Bhd’s trade mark is confusing or deception to the public under Section 14(1)(a) and 19(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1976.
Solid Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”)...
MALAYSIA: MONIER or LA MONIEER?
A recent dispute involving trade marks of “MONIER” and “LA MONIEER” sparked a myriad of issues including trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement heard at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur.
Monier Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Monier Sdn. Bhd. and Redland Engineering Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) belong to Monier Group of Companies with Redland Engineering...
BRUNEI: RE-REGISTERED PATENT TERM DEFINED BY COURT
A recent case of dispute in the High Court of Brunei relates to a declaration of non-infringement patent matter lead to an escalation of its appeal to the Court of Appeal of Brunei. This case involved Winthrop Pharmaceuticals (M) Sdn. Bhd. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha.
Winthrop Pharmaceuticals (M) Sdn. Bhd. sought an application for a declaration of non-infringement of a Brunei...
MALAYSIA: FEDERAL COURT RULED ON SCOPE OF SECTION 42 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT
In the case of Dura-Mine Sdn. Bhd. v Elster Metering Limited and George Kent (Malaysia) Berhad, the Federal Court has recently examined the scope and application of Section 42 of the Copyright Act 1987 (hereinafter be referred as “the Act”).
First and foremost, it is appropriate to reproduce Section 42 of the Act here:
42. (1) An affidavit or statutory declaration made...
MALAYSIA: ST. JOHN’S TRADE MARK HELD TO BE INFRINGED
In the case of St. John Ambulans Malaysia v PJ Uniform Sdn. Bhd., the High Court of Malaya in Shah Alam, found that PJ Uniform Sdn. Bhd. had infringed the registered trade mark of St. John Ambulans Malaysia (the “SJAM” emblem).
St. John Ambulans Malaysia (hereinafter referred as the Plaintiff) is a statutorily incorporated body with charitable objects. The Plaintiff relied...