SINGAPORE: WARNER-LAMBERT TAKES ON NOVARTIS (SINGAPORE)
The appeal arises from the dispute of two pharmaceutical giants, Warner-Lambert Company LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Warner-Lambert”) and Novartis (Singapore) Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Novartis”). The subject matter refers to a pharmaceutical patent owned by Warner-Lambert which monopolises the use of a substance known as “pregabalin” (the Patent discussed) used in the treatment...
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...
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...