Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们