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...
SINGAPORE – FAUX CALVIN
In the case of Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others SGHC 214, leading fashion designer Calvin Klein had sued Singapore-registered Global PSM for trademark infringement after investigators bought fake Calvin Klein goods including wallets and underwear online on the SGbuy4u website. In the end, the operator of local website SGbuy4u was ordered by the High Court to...
MALAYSIA – BAIK TRADE MARK
In the case of Al Baik Fast Food Distribution Co SAE v El Baik Food Systems Co S A, and Another Appeal, the dispute in issue was over the similar trade mark “Baik”. In the 76 pages of the judgment delivered by Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer JCA, there were many issues that were discussed and these issues are seen to provide a new perspective on how trade marks will be effective on consumers and...
THAILAND – AMENDMENTS TO TRADE MARK ACT
On 28 July 2016, Thai Trademark Amendment Act B.E. 2559 has come into force. There are several key amendments that we would like to highlight as they bring significant effect to the changes on trade mark applications and how applicants can protect their trade marks.
The amended Act has provided many changes. Sound mark is a new addition to the range of protection provided by the Act, but they...
MALAYSIA: A KRAFTY MATTER, A CONTINUATION
Previously, the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) has rejected a trade mark application by Kraft Foods Shweiz Holding GmbH. The trade mark is:
The decision was based on the reasons that the trade mark did not fulfil the requirements of Section 10(1)(d) and (e) of the Trade Mark Act 1976 and that the trade mark did not fall within the definition of Section 3(1) of the Act....
MALAYSIA – A CAT FIGHT
This is a case concerning the use of the mark “FUSSIE CAT” and the law of passing off as decided by a High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur.
The First Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Singapore and is in the business of manufacturing and distributing products relating to pets/animals, which includes animal food, litter, accessories, hygiene products etc. The Second Plaintiff is a company...
INDONESIA: MASSIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT LAW
On 28 July 2016, the proposal to amendment of Indonesian Patent Law was passed. It was to be effective starting from 28 August 2016, to replace the previous Law No. 14 Year 2001 on Patents. There are several key amendments that we would like to highlight as they bring significant effect to the patent applicants and owners.
Firstly, the changes made are on the exemptions from pharmaceutical...
MALAYSIA: THE FIGHT OVER “OVERSEAS”
In the case of Restoran Oversea Holdings Sdn Bhd v Overseas Seafood Restaurant Sdn Bhd, Restoran Oversea Holdings Sdn Bhd (hereafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) had filed for a legal action to claim damages and to injunct Overseas Seafood Restaurant Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) from continuing with the passing off of the Plaintiff’s two trade marks.
The first trade...