SINGAPORE: MYSTERY SET
This case deals on whether the use of a trade mark only in references to invoices would constitute as “use” per the Singapore Trade Marks Act.
In this revocation proceeding before the IPOS, the Applicants sought to revoke the trade mark “MYSTERY SET” (hereinafter be referred as “the subject mark”) on the ground of non-use. The date of completion of registration of the subject mark...
SINGAPORE: THE FACESHOP CO LTD V CONSOLIDATED ARTISTS BV
The mark “MANGO” by Consolidated Artists BV (Opponent) has been registered in various classes and it is considered as a well-known mark among the public in Singapore. However, their effort to maintain the exclusivity of the word “MANGO” in any mark in relevance to facial and skin preparations, cosmetics, soaps and fragrances in class 3 was unsuccessful.
In this case, THE FACESHOP CO LTD...
MALAYSIA: LONGCANE INDUSTRIES’ TRADE MARKS EXPUNGED
In the case of Lim Teck Lee (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. vs, Longcane Industries Sdn. Bhd., Lim Teck Lee (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) applied to expunge trade mark registration no. 06023307 in Class 21 and trade mark registration no. 09007210 in Class 09 bearing a distinctive yellow elephant mark in the name of Lonecane Industries Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to...
MALAYSIA: THE 2-IN-1 TRIAL
In the case of Doretti Resources Sdn Bhd v Fitters Marketing Sdn Bhd & Ors, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants had infringed the Plaintiff’s mark “PYRO” in their 1st suit and a counterclaim from the 1st suit was filed by “Fitters Marketing and Pyro-tech to remove the Plaintiff’s mark from the Register. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants had requested the court to strike out the 1st...
MALAYSIA: ORIGINATING SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED ON FOREIGN ENTITIES PERSONALLY AND NOT ON THEIR MALAYSIAN AGENTS
In the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Renown Incorporated, the Plaintiff is the manufacturer of high-end products in relation to various fashionable goods for the very well-known brand Louis Vuitton whereas the Defendant, Renown Incorporated is a Japanese company whose neither office nor business is located in Malaysia.
The Plaintiff had filed a suit in Malaysia to expunge the Defendant’s...
MALAYSIA: “GS” v “GiSi” – BATTLE OF BATTERY GIANTS
In the case of GS Yuasa Corporation v GBI Marketing Malaysia Sdn Bhd, GS Yuasa Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “the Plaintiff”) applied to expunge the trade mark, “GISI Premium High Power” for goods in Class 09 in the name of GBI Marketing Malaysia Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the “the Defendant”) from the Register of Trade Marks.
In the High Court, the Plaintiff applied...
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...
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....