TORT LAW – PASSING OFF – UNREGISTERED – TRADE MARK – INFRINGEMENT

I have been selling my brand named ‘Slimmy Slimmy’ on social media but I never do trade mark registration. One day, I received messages on social media asking me whether certain goods with the label ‘Slimmie Slimmie’ were mine. Upon conducting trade mark search, I discovered that the brand had been registered. What can I do?

You can sue them under the common law tort of passing off.
Under the law of Trademarks Act 2019 and the Trademarks Regulations 2019, legal actions against trade mark infringement is available only when a registered mark is infringed.
The registered proprietor of the mark has the right to initiate court proceedings against any person who has infringed or is infringing its mark.
HOWEVER, as for unregistered marks, the proprietor may sue the infringer for passing off its mark as that of the proprietor’s.

What should be proven by the proprietor?

In order for a proprietor who did not register its mark to establish passing off, the proprietor must be able to prove that there was goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services; misrepresentation; and damages.
Furthermore, Malaysia practises the ‘First-to-Use’ principle, provided that these marks have attained goodwill and reputation in Malaysia.

What ‘First-to-Use’ principle is?

First use means the use of a trade mark prior to anyone else regardless of the extent of such use.
The ‘First-to-Use’ principle establishes that trade mark rights accrue to the first business to use the mark in association with the sale of goods or services on the market.
This principle acknowledges the right of the first user of a mark.
Other countries such as the United Kingdom recognises ‘First-to-File’ principle (the first person to register a brand obtains the rights).

Our Comments

Tort of passing off is more difficult to prove and can be expensive.
Thus, protection via registration would always be recommended in order to protect your intellectual property right.
Registration is the way to go but the Malaysian trade mark system does take into account of common law rights that accrue from use of an unregistered mark.

Sorotan Terkini

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

PROPERTY LAW – CLAIMING OWNERSHIP: COURT UPHOLDS LEGAL TITLE AND DISMISSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami