SINGAPORE: CHANGES TO PATENT AND TRADEMARK LEGISLATIONS
Applicants who wish to file an international application under the Patent Corporation Treaty (PCT) with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as the receiving office, may wish to be advised of the following.
Prior to 1 January 2017, applicants were only permitted to file applications in the English language. As of 1 January 2017, any applicant who wishes to file such an...
Adipven is Expanding
As you are well aware, Adipven was founded on 2 January 2012. Over the last five years, it has serviced clients from all around the world and has been consistently recognized by clients as one of the best if not the best intellectual property consultancy and commercialisation firm.
The firm’s team of talented and committed lawyers, patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys, new plant variety and...
MALAYSIA: DISPUTE BETWEEN OIL AND INK
In X1R Global Holding Sdn Bhd and X1R Global Sdn Bhd v Y-TEQ Auto Parts (M) Sdn Bhd, the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur allowed the Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant.
X1R Global Holding Sdn Bhd (hereinafter be referred as “the 1st Plaintiff”) is the proprietor of trade mark, “X1R”, bearing the Malaysian Trade Mark Registration Number of 05002405 in class 4 whereas X1R Global Sdn Bhd...
Singapore: Apple’s Trade Mark Sherlock Revoked
In the matter of Apple Inc (‘Apple’) and Bigfoot Internet Ventures Pte Ltd (‘Bigfoot’), it was uncovered that companies offering post-sale software support provided online could possibly satisfy the ‘evidence of use’ test required under the Trade Marks Act in Singapore. However, the underlying rule in this case is that if a company fails to put their trade mark to genuine use for a five-year...
NEW YEAR WISHES FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Dear respected clients and associates,
As 2016 bids its goodbye, I would like to thank everyone who have consulted Adipven for your intellectual property matters this year.
I am proud to inform you that Adipven has expanded greatly since our entrance into the business five years ago.
Our colleagues are a great team of people who work on every case with utmost passion. Due to the extraordinary...
MALAYSIA – THE VELLUX FIGHT
In the case of NCTech Int Bhd v NCV Technologies Sdn Bhd & Ors, the dispute in issue was over a trade mark infringement. The Plaintiff, NCTech Int Bhd, claimed that the Defendant, NCV Technologies Sdn Bhd and Other Parties, have infringed their trade mark “Vellux“ which they acquired through the law of passing off.
The trade mark “Vellux” and “NCCvellux” were registered under the Second...
MALAYSIA – THE PYRO TRADE MARK CASE
In the case of Doretti Resources Sdn Bhd v Fitters Marketing Sdn Bhd & Ors, it was concerning a trade mark dispute.
The issue was whether the 3rd Defendant has supplied goods which infringed the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark.
The Plaintiff was granted an Anton Piller Order against the 3rd Defendant. The Order was authorised for the 3rd Defendant’s office to be raided and investigated....
INDONESIA: AMENDMENTS OF THE TRADE MARK LAW 2016
Recently, the Indonesian House of Representatives has passed amendments to Indonesian trade mark law. The amended trade mark law came into force on 10 November 2016. There are several amendments that we would like to highlight as the new laws will significantly affect the applicants and their respective applications.
To begin with, the most anticipated change in the Indonesian trade mark law...
MALAYSIA: MALAYSIAN COMPANY TOOK ON US COMPANY
In the case of Huan Schen Sdn. Bhd vs SRAM, LLC, Huan Schen Sdn. Bhd,., the Plaintiff – a Malaysian company that sells bicycles, bicycle spare parts and accessories had filed an originating summons (OS) against SRAM, LLC – a US-based company.
Plaintiff’s trade mark contains the word “SRAM” which is the Defendant’s company’s name who happens to be in the same industry. An opposition was...
MALAYSIA: REGISTRAR CANNOT APPLY TO SET ASIDE SUBPOENAS
In the case of World Grand Dynamic Marketing Sdn Bhd v Fjvaa Spa Sdn Bhd & Ors, the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur has decided that the Registrar of Trade Marks (Registrar) cannot apply to Court to set aside subpoenas which have been issued to the Registrar.
In this case, the facts of the case showed that the Plaintiff applied to the Court to issue subpoenas to two Officers of...