Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

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.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us