MALAYSIA: APPEAL DISMISSED BY THE FEDERAL COURT
In the case of Mesuma Sports Sdn. Bhd. v Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia, the Federal Court in Malaysia dismissed the appeal with cost due the facts that Mesuma Sports was the first user of the tiger stripes.
Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia (hereinafter referred as “the Respondent”) is a statutory body established under the provisions of the National Sports Council of Malaysia Act 1971 (Act 29). Its...
MALAYSIA: RATO TRADE MARK AND COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP DISPUTE DECIDED
In the case of Chongqing Rato Manufacturing Corporation v MP Machinery (M) Sdn. Bhd., the Malaysian High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claims to expunge the registration of the Defendant’s trade mark.
Chongqing Rato Manufacturing Corporation (hereinafter referred as “the Plaintiff”) was incorporated on 1 June 2007 in China under the name of Chongqing Rato Power Co Ltd. On 19 September 2012, it...
MALAYSIA: USA PRO SUCCEEDS IN CANCELLING USAPRO TRADE MARK
This article relates to USA PRO IP Limited v Monfort Services Sdn. Bhd. and Registrar of Trade Marks is a trademark dispute in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
USA PRO IP Limited (hereinafter be referred as “the Plaintiff”) is a company incorporated in England and is in the business of manufacturing, distributing, supplying, selling and offering for supply various goods around the world. The goods...
MALAYSIA: SANTA BARBARA POLO & RACQUET CLUB TRIUMPHS IN BATTLE OF POLOS
This article is based on the decision of the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur involves between BRG Brilliant Rubber Goods (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“hereinafter referred as “the Plaintiff”) which is a company incorporated in Malaysia who has been manufacturing and selling a wide range of goods under its registered mark in Classes 25 and 28 in Malaysia since 28 August 1981 (hereinafter referred to as...
MALAYSIA: PARLIAMENT V PARLIAMENT
In the case of Philip Morris Brands SARL v Rothmans Brands Sdn. Bhd., the Malaysian High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claims for non – use of the ‘Parliament’ trade mark by the Defendant.
Philip Morris Brands SARL (hereinafter referred as “the Plaintiff”) is a company incorporated in Switzerland and is part of the Philip Morris International Inc. Group of Companies (‘the PMI Group’). The...
MALAYSIA: CONSENT ORDER REVISITED
This article is based on the decision of High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur involves between X1R Global Holdings previously known as Quantum Global Far East Sdn. Bhd. with X1R Global Sdn. Bhd. and Y-TEQ Auto Parts (M) Sdn. Bhd. and Registrar of the Trade Marks, Malaysia.
X1R Global Holdings (hereinafter be referred as “the 1st Plaintiff”) and X1R Global Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter be referred as...
MALAYSIA: USE OF TRADEMARK DEFINED
In NCTECH INT BHD. v NCV TECHNOLOGIES SDN. BHD., the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur ruled on the application of the word “use” in the context of trademark law as defined in Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1976.
It is an application for leave to commence committal proceedings against the Defendant for non-compliance with an ad interim order of the High Court dated 30 October 2014...
MALAYSIA: COLLIERS TRADE MARK IN DISPUTE
Colliers International Property Consultants Inc. v Colliers International Property Consultants Sdn. Bhd. is a trade mark dispute before the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
The Plaintiff (Colliers International Property Consultants Inc.) is the owner of two registered trade marks, “Colliers” and the Collier Logo in class 36 (hereinafter be referred as “the...
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...
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...