MALAYSIA: IMPORTANCE OF ADDUCING PROPER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS
MALAYSIA: IMPORTANCE OF ADDUCING PROPER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS
This article summarizes the judgement on the amount of damages awarded to the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their acts of copyright infringement in the case of Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (hereinafter referred to “the Plaintiff” or “the Appellant”) and Mforce Bike Holdings Sdn Bhd & Malaysian Formula...
MALAYSIA: CAN A DISTRIBUTOR REGISTER A TRADEMARK UNDER THEIR NAME FOR GOODS BEARING THE TRADEMARK WHICH THEY DISTRIBUTE?
MALAYSIA: CAN A DISTRIBUTOR REGISTER A TRADEMARK UNDER THEIR NAME FOR GOODS BEARING THE TRADEMARK WHICH THEY DISTRIBUTE?
INTRODUCTION
You have finally received your Certificate of Registration (hereinafter referred to as “CoR”) for a trademark, phew! But wait, does this mean your rights to use your trademark exclusively and prevent the use of your trademark by others absolute and...
MALAYSIA: AMENDMENTS TO TRADEMARKS ACT 2019 AND TRADEMARK REGULATIONS 2019 EMPOWER GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS ACT 2022
In the first quarter of 2022, Malaysia saw key legislations governing Intellectual Property (IP) being amended and new legislations being introduced. Among the newly introduced legislation is the Geographical Indications Act 2022 (“the GI Act 2022”) which came into force on 18 March 2022.
The GI Act 2022 replaced Geographical Indications Act 2000 (“the GI Act 2000”), which also brought about...
MALAYSIA: AMENDMENTS TO COPYRIGHT ACT 1987 CAME INTO FORCE
The year 2022 saw notable changes to the Intellectual Property (IP) scene in Malaysia with significant amendments being made to key legislations which deal with IP in Malaysia among which include amendments to the Copyright Act 1987 (“the CA 1987”) which was effected by the Copyright (Amendment) Act 2022 (“ the Amendment Act”). The Amendment Act was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 18 December...
MALAYSIA: PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2022 CAME INTO FORCE
The Patents (Amendment) Act 2022, (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act”), the act which effected significant changes to the Patents Act 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Patents Act”), was passed by the Dewan Negara of Parliament (Senate) on 22 December 2021 and received Royal Accent on 4 March 2022.
The Amendment Act came into force in Malaysia on 18 March 2022, the same date...
MALAYSIA: COURT REFUSED CASE TRANSFER
Hassan Bin Zulkifli (hereinafter referred as the “Defendant”) had applied for pursuant to Order 57 Rule 1 (4)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) for the current suit filed by Muhammad Hafidz Bin Mohd Dusuki (hereinafter referred as the “Plaintiff”) against him to be transferred to the Kota Bharu High Court. However, this application was dismissed by the Court.
Order 57 r.1 of ROC – Transfer...
MALAYSIA: TRADE MARKS INVOLVING CHINESE PRAYER PAPERS AND BOXES WERE EXPUNGED
Three appellants namely Ooi Siew Bee, BM Eng Leong Sdn. Bhd and Tan Choo Hin (hereinafter referred as “the original Plaintiffs”) had made an appeal in the Court of Appeal (COA) against the dismissal of their application to expunge the respondent’s, Zhu Ge Kong Ming Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred as “the original Defendant”) trade marks by the High Court of Malaya.
In the past, the original...
MALAYSIA: COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSESSEMENT OF COSTS AND DAMAGES
This is an appeal filed by Eng Hin Aquatics Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred as “the original Defendant”) at the Court of Appeal (COA) against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar (hereinafter referred as “the DR”) who awarded compensatory damages to Pets Global Pte. Ltd. and AS Frost Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred as “the original Plaintiffs”) pursuant to an assessment of damages...
MALAYSIA: IP COURT CLARIFIES WHEN ORDER FOR COST AGAINST PLAINTIFF CAN BE ISSUED
The power of a Court to order the Plaintiff to an action to provide security for cost was analysed in the case of Wei Her Pte Ltd v Ooi Teik Seng & Dry Cut Sdn. Bhd.
The Defendants in the present case applied to the IP Court for an order against the Plaintiff, which is a Singapore company, to provide security for costs until the final disposal of the suit. The Court allowed the application...
MALAYSIA: CAR MAKERS LOST IN THE FIRST ROUND OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn. Bhd. and Perodua Sales Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred as the “Plaintiffs”) in their suit alleged that Lee Lap Kee, sole proprietor carrying a business under the name “Eco Auto Supply” (hereinafter referred as the “Defendant”) had, without licence and authority of the Plaintiff, imported, manufactured, produced, reproduced, distributed, supplied, sold and/offered...