In brief

  •  While enterprises and corporations are commonly appraised based on the relative value of their physical assets, the equally important Intellectual Property (IP) rights they control are sometimes disregarded. It is a common fallacy that a typical business that only engages in commerce and does not engage in creative output or ground-breaking innovation has little to do with intellectual property. In truth, intellectual property might be as simple as a company’s logo or the packaging or design of its products. As a result, in today’s market, wise business owners must be aware of what rights they may have that extend well beyond their physical assets, as well as how they might defend such rights.

Q. I recently discovered that a firm with a similar name to mine exists. Is it possible for me to pursue legal action against them?

A. Yes, you can sue the corporation for trademark infringement since the unauthorised use of a registered mark as part of a trade or company name could be grounds for a lawsuit. This is due to the fact that once your trademark is registered, you now enjoy exclusive and exclusive ownership of it.

What constitutes an infringement of a trademark? 

  •  A person who is not the registered proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user of the trade mark utilising by way of authorised use infringes on it by using a mark that is identical to it or so nearly resembling it as to deceive or create confusion in the course of business. That being said, s.38 TMA 1976 governs trademark infringement where it is held that in a case where the use is on the goods or in physical relation to them, or in an advertising circular, or other advertisement issued to the public, as importing a reference to a person who has the right to use the trade mark either as a registered proprietor or as a registered user, or to goods with which the person is connected in the course of trade. 

Q. Ok what if the other party argues that their organisation is not entirely similar to yours? 

A. It didn’t matter if the infringing mark was in capital or lowercase as long as the name was likely to cause confusion, and there shouldn’t be a microscopic examination of the minute differences between the competing names in determining the possibility of misunderstanding.

Whether the defendants committed the tort of passing off the plaintiff’s products as their own?

  •  In essence, the test requires a plaintiff in a passing off action based on a mark or get-up to show that the plaintiff has goodwill in the company about the mark or get-up, misrepresentation, and loss to the plaintiff’s goodwill caused by the misrepresentation. 
  • In Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd v Nor Yanni bt Adom & Anor [2022] 2 MLJ 67 the learned High Court judge was convinced that the plaintiff’s registered brand and the get-up of the plaintiff’s products attract business and customers . Furthermore, the High Court judge determined that the defendants misrepresented the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, resulting in deception. Finally, the plaintiff’s goods and the defendant’s product are in direct rivalry with one another, and the court will readily infer that the plaintiff’s goodwill would be harmed as a result of lost sales and loss of exclusive use of the plaintiff’s registered brand and get-up.

Recent Post


In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »


This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »


This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »


In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Read More »


Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code 1965, Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code.

Read More »
× How can I help you?