MALAYSIA: OISHI V OISHI, THE BATTLE CONTINUES
In the case of Liwayway Marketing Corporation v Oishi Group Public Company Limited, Liwayway Marketing Corporation, appealed against the High Court’s decision to expunge their trade mark “Oishi”.
Readers of our newsletters will surely recall that we have previously reported that in the High Court, Oishi Group Public Company Limited had succeeded in their application to expunge the Oishi trade...
MALAYSIA: A “SWISS” STORY INDEED
In Maestro Swiss Chocolate Sdn. Bhd. v Chocosuisse Union Des Fabricants Suisses De Chocolat, Kraft Food Schweiz AG and Nestle Suisse S.A., the Federal Court of Malaysia dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents.
Maestro Swiss (hereinafter be referred to as “ the Appellant”) manufactures and sells various types of chocolates under the brand...
MALAYSIA: SUPPLY AND SALE OF INFRINGED PRODUCTS ARE NOT TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS
In Doretti Resources Sdn. Bhd. v Fitters Marketing Sdn. Bhd., ‘PYRO’-Tech Systems Sdn. Bhd., Teamware Sdn. Bhd., Muetech Sdn. Bhd. and Foo Swee Koon, the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur allowed striking out the Plaintiff’s claim against the last two Defendants.
Doretti Resources Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter be referred as “the Plaintiff”) is a registered owner of the trademark ‘PYRO’ associated...
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...
SINGAPORE: IPOS DEFINES THE TERM USE OF MARK
In this trade mark revocation hearing before the Hearings and Mediation Group of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), Lisbeth Enterprises Limited (hereinafter be referred as “the Applicant”), filed an application for revocation of a trade mark on the grounds of non-use. The subject mark was registered in the name of Procter and Gamble International Operations SA (hereinafter...
SINGAPORE: CONVERSE FAILS IN OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS
In the opposition hearing of a trade mark application by Southern Rubber Works Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter be referred “the Applicant”), opposed by Converse Inc. (hereinafter be referred “the Opponent”), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (hereinafter be referred as “IPOS”) has reiterated the requirements for opposing a trade mark application for being identical or similar with an...