Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TRADEMARKS – INFRINGEMENT – LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSING CONFUSION

Q: I found out that there is a company using similar name with my company. Can I take legal action against them?

Yes.

  • You may bring action against the company for trademark infringement.
  • An action for infringement could be founded upon the unauthorised use of a registered mark as part of a trade or company name.
  • Upon registration of your trademark, you have a sole and exclusive ownership over the trademark.
  • If there is someone infringes your trademark, you may commence a legal suit at the High Court against the infringer.

Q: What if they argue that they did not use their name 100% exactly like ours?

A:

  • So long as the name is likely to cause confusion, whether the infringing mark was used in uppercase or lowercase was immaterial.
  • There should not be a microscopic comparison of the minute differences between the competing marks in deciding the likelihood of confusion.

Q: What is the correct approach in deciding whether there is a trademark infringement?

A:

  • Firstly, enquire whether their use of the infringing marks came within the specification of services covered by the registration of your company’s trademark.
  • The words in a specification of services should be given their natural and ordinary meaning.

Q: Any advice for someone who is choosing a business name?

A:

  • Conduct a name search at the business or company registry, a domain name search or at least a search on Google.
  • This may avoid potential infringement of other people’s trademark.

Case in point: SkyWorld Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v SkyWorld Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 3 MLJ 294. Court of Appeal (Putrajaya) no: W-02(IPCV)(W)- 383-02 of 2019

Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们