Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

TRADEMARK – BUSINESS SABOTAGE AND TRADEMARK MISUSE

1. Summary and Facts

The case S3 Ventures Sdn Bhd v Oravel Stays Singapore Pte Ltd & Anor [2025] MLJU 40 concerns a dispute between S3 Ventures Sdn Bhd (“Plaintiff”), the owner of Sky Star Hotel, and Oravel Stays Singapore Pte Ltd & Anor (“Defendants”), relating to the Marketing and Operational Consulting Agreement (“MOCA”) dated 25.10.2018. The Plaintiff alleged breaches of contract, unlawful interference with business, failure to comply with post-contractual obligations, and infringement of intellectual property rights.

Under the MOCA, the Plaintiff engaged the Defendants to provide marketing and operational support through the OYO Platform. The agreement included a three-month lock-in period, during which termination was not permitted, and a three-month management fee waiver effective from 31.10.2018.

The Plaintiff issued a Notice of Termination on 15.1.2019, which took effect on 17.2.2019. Following termination, disputes arose concerning the Defendants’ continued control over the Plaintiff’s OTA (Online Travel Agent) accounts, unauthorized fee charges, rate manipulation, customer redirection to competitors, and continued use of the Plaintiff’s “Sky Star Hotel” trademark.

2. Legal Issues

i. Whether the Defendants breached the MOCA by charging management fees during the waiver period and unilaterally lowering hotel rates?
ii. Whether the Defendants sabotaged the Plaintiff’s business by diverting customers to competitor hotels and obstructing OTA access?
iii. Whether the Defendants continued using the Plaintiff’s “Sky Star Hotel” trademark post-termination without authorization?
iv. Whether the Defendants failed to restore the Plaintiff’s OTA access and remove their branding post-termination?
v. Whether the Plaintiff breached the MOCA by failing to disclose an agreement with Agoda AGP and continuing to use OYO branding post-termination?

3. Court Findings

• The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, holding that the MOCA was validly terminated on 17.2.2019, following the agreed lock-in period. However, the Defendants failed to comply with their contractual obligations post-termination.
• It was found that the Defendants had wrongfully charged management fees, despite agreeing to waive them for three months. Additionally, they had unilaterally lowered hotel rates, which resulted in financial losses for the Plaintiff. The court also noted that the Defendants had failed to return OTA account access, preventing the Plaintiff from managing its own hotel bookings and affecting business operations.
• Further, the court determined that the Defendants had engaged in unlawful interference, including rerouting guests to competitor hotels and altering the hotel’s Google listing to state it was “permanently closed”, causing reputational damage to the Plaintiff’s business. Additionally, the Defendants had continued to use the Plaintiff’s trademark even after the MOCA had been terminated, constituting trademark infringement.
• On the Defendants’ counterclaim, the court found that they failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations that the Plaintiff had misused OYO branding or that they had overpaid the Plaintiff. As a result, the counterclaim was dismissed.

4. Practical Implications

This case highlights the importance of clear termination clauses, compliance with contractual obligations, and safeguarding business operations. Companies should maintain control over their branding, online booking platforms, and customer relationships to avoid disputes. Documenting agreements and communications is crucial to protecting legal rights and ensuring smooth transitions after contract termination. The ruling also emphasizes the need for strong intellectual property protection to prevent unauthorized use of trademarks and branding.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN