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.
On 28 September 2015, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) officially launched the online application for the renewal of registered trademarks. This is surely a step forward for DGIP in making IP rights protection and maintenance more accessible to the public. The online application shortens the renewal process from the current period of at least 1 year to a maximum of 14 working days.
Are all shoes, all stars? It seems like popular shoe brand, Converse Inc., would prefer being the only one. The American shoe giant recently filed an opposition at the IP Office of Singapore (IPOS) against the registration of the “” mark by Malaysian company, Southern Rubber Works Sdn Bhd. The latter was accused of trying to register a mark substantially similar to Converse’s “” mark, with a star surrounded by script and bordered by two concentric circles.
By Carola Monintja
The recent introduction of the Intellectual Property Right (IPR) Data and Information Service System or “Layanan Data dan Informasi Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (LADI HKI)” has taken Indonesia’s Director General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) one step forward in serving IPR owners and their agents alike.
By Carola Monintja
For well-known trademarks, particularly those consisting of two or more words, each part of the trademark can be just as valuable as the others. This was clearly shown in the Gudang Garam vs Gudang Baru case.
In Indonesia, Gudang Garam is a very well-known trademark for rokok kretek or clove cigarettes. Most Indonesians prefer clove cigarettes to the conventional non-clove cigarettes (i.e., Marlboro, 555, Davidoff, etc.), for its strong herb sensation.
In the April 2015 issue of our KASS IP exposé, we ran a brief news update on Cambodia acceding to the Madrid Protocol, effective 5th June 2015. But in case you missed it, and you’re wondering, should you or your clients designate Cambodia? Here’s the not-so-short answer:
Yes, if your clients are involved in the following industries: garments, tourism, rubber, wood, cement, construction and agriculture.
In a recent Singaporean case, AMC Live Group China Pte Ltd (“AMC Live”) successfully used the “Own Name Defence” in response to infringement proceedings. The plaintiff, The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd (“AMC Asia”) claimed that the defendant, AMC Live, had infringed two of its registered trademarks and also brought a claim against them for passing off.
The Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 came into force in Malaysia on 1 April 2015, bringing with it some good news and some not-so-good news.
The GOOD News
The Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) will replace the Service Tax that was already in place in the service industry. Fortunately, the GST is 6% which is identical to the 6% Service Tax that was imposed on our professional fees previously.
The NOT-SO-GOOD News
The GST now imposes 6% on certain disbursements incurred as well. The previous Service Tax was not imposed on disbursements.