The figures obtained from the Malaysian Intellectual Property Corporation (MyIPO) shows the performance over 2016 in some sectors of the economy. MIMOS Berhad takes its placing on the top ranking, while Universiti Malaya drops to second ranking after being in the top position for two years running. The rest of the list reveals some surprises and a few new entries:
When one conducts a trademark search or applies for a trademark registration, they are exposed to the Nice Classification system. The Nice Classification system is a system of classifying goods and services into 45 classes – 34 for goods and 11 for services.
It can be difficult to classify (select the right class under the Nice Classification) as several similar terms exist in other classes.
Thus, the classification tool, TM Class, is a godsend to trademark owners and IP lawyers, as it allows users to search and translate appropriate terms for the purpose of finding the correct Nice Classification for that specific goods or services.
The Indonesian government has increased its’ official fees for a range of IP prosecution actions and has amended its’ Trademark Law.
New Official Fees:
Good news is that not all of the fees have been increased. Bad news is that there is a 100% increase in some parts. This change has become effective since 10 November 2016.
We have great news for all brand owners. The much awaited entry into Madrid Protocol by Thailand has taken place. Thailand recently amended its Trademark Act and this change has become effective since 28 July 2016.
While SEIKO may be the pioneer in “exquisite workmanship” when it comes to timepieces, living up to its name and establishing itself as a famous brand to half the world, it certainly did not enjoy much success in its battle in opposing the trademark “SEIKI” from securing a place in the trademark registry of Singapore.
Ever wondered how the English word “Parliament” was coined to represent the legislative body in various countries? The root of the word, interestingly and rather aptly, is derived from the French word “parler”, which means “to talk” or “to discuss”.
What may be a generic word in the political and legislative arena has surprisingly become a trademark of choice of not one but two international tobacco companies, British American Tobacco Malaysia (BAT) and Philip Morris International (“Philip Morris”).
A dispute arose in our Malaysian High Court when Philip Morris, who sought to introduce its “PARLIAMENT” branded cigarettes in Malaysia, was prevented by the existence of prior “PARLIAMENT” trademarks registered in Malaysia by BAT.
By Carola Monintja
Recently a controversial decision made by the Indonesian Supreme Court has been making waves in local and foreign media. The Supreme Court refused the cassation appeal filed by internationally well-known furniture company, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (“IKSBV”), and affirmed the decision by the Commercial Court to allow the deletion of the “” trademark in Class 20 and Class 21.
So how could this happen and what does this mean for IKEA’s business in Indonesia? Let’s look at the facts of the story.
Universiti Malaya retains its top position for two years running, while the rest of the list reveals some surprises and a few new entries:
Terminating an agreement can be akin to a divorce, and this was seen in the recent case between Colliers International Property Consultants Inc. (“the Plaintiff”) and Colliers International Property Consultants Sdn Bhd (“the Defendant”), where the Defendant (also former licensee) kept using the Plaintiff’s logo and name even after the termination of the relevant agreements between the parties.
By Rebecca Chong
In the race to secure the registration of their trademarks, many think that once the trademarks are in the Register, they are “safe”. Although registration grants you certain rights and protection, it does not guarantee immunity from being cancelled or expunged from the Register. In other words, registration cannot be used as a defense in an infringement or cancellation suit.
Such a defense was attempted in a recent appeal case. In the Malaysian High Court earlier on, an infringement action was brought by Rotta Research Laboratorium S.p.A, owner of the registered trademark “Viartril-S” for glucosamine sulphate based drug and its distributor (henceforth collectively known as “Rotta”), against Ho Tack Sien, Advanced Pharma Sdn Bhd (registered owner of the trademark “Atril-250”) & Others (henceforth collectively known as “Ho Tack Sien”). Rotta contended that the product bearing the name of “Atril-250” bears a colourable and deceptive imitation of its trademark “Viartril-S” and get-up. Hence, Ho Tack Sien had infringed Rotta’s trademark.