JURISDICTION REPORT: MALAYSIA
RESHAPING MALAYSIAN DESIGN LAW Dave A. Wyatt
Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd
Te jurisdiction report in the July/August 2009 issue of WIPR celebrated a decade of independent industrial design law in Malaysia. Tat report concluded that although the system of design protection had functioned well, there was a need to modernise the law to bring it more into line with international standards.
It is now known that changes to all four main IP laws in Malaysia, covering trademarks, copyright, designs and patents, are on the horizon. Te first sign of change on designs came with the recent release of a draſt parliamentary bill for a new Designs Act 2010. Te draſt bill is a substantial work that proposes changes not only in the substantive law, but also in its administration.
Te key changes concern the definition of a design, the standard for its registrability, the term of protection, and a clearer demarcation between the jurisdictions of the Malaysian IP Office (MyIPO) and the High Court. Tat the amendments require a whole new act, rather than merely changes to the existing one, demonstrates the scale of the reform. Te term ‘industrial’ is deliberately removed from the title, in an attempt to highlight the new law’s relevance to more contemporary concepts of design.
A product shall be eligible for design protection covering its appearance as a whole or in part arising from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shapes, textures or materials of the product or its ornamentation. Tere are exclusions for features of appearance that are solely dictated by the product’s technical function, or must be reproduced exactly for the product to work alongside another product.
In order to be registrable, a design must be novel and have individual character. In considering individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer is to be taken into account. Under the Industrial Designs Act 1996, only local novelty is required. Te draſt bill specifies a worldwide novelty standard for the first time, though this is tempered by a wide- ranging 12-month grace period that excludes prior disclosure at an official exhibition, by the applicant or by another person as the result of an unauthorised act. Te intention of the expanded grace period is to allow for market testing without prejudice to a later application for registration.
It is proposed to extend the term of protection from 15 years to a maximum of 25 years, consistent with the term available to UK-registered designs protected under the transitional provisions of the 1996 act as determined by the High Court in 2005.
Under the 1996 act, rectification of the register and revocation of a design registration are principally matters for the court. Te Registrar has jurisdiction in limited circumstances. According to the draſt bill, an
www.worldipreview.com
“ A PRODUCT SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGN PROTECTION COVERING ITS APPEARANCE AS A WHOLE OR IN PART ARISING FROM THE FEATURES OF, IN PARTICULAR, THE LINES, CONTOURS, COLOURS, SHAPES, TEXTURES OR MATERIALS OF THE PRODUCT OR ITS ORNAMENTATION.”
application for invalidation of a registration on the grounds of lack of registrability or non-entitlement would be made first to the Registrar, with its decision appealable to the court. Tis change is aimed at more efficient administration, with fewer burdens on the court and lower costs for third parties that need to challenge a design registration.
Te substantive registrability requirements will be familiar to European practitioners as they largely adopt the wording of EU and harmonised European national laws on design protection. On the other hand, the substantive provisions on infringement in the draſt bill remain the same. A finding of infringement still requires the infringer to have adopted the same design or an obvious or fraudulent imitation of it.
Many of the other changes in the draſt bill appear to be little more than extensive rewrites of the current law that add unnecessary layers of complication without seeming to address any issues. Official statistics show a fall in the number of new design applications filed with MyIPO since a peak in 2007. Te decline is doubtless primarily the result of belt-tightening by foreign applicants that are more likely to cut back on designs than patents in economic hard times. Now, designers face a future broadening of the scope of protectable subject matter tied to a higher registrability bar. Whether the official objective of stimulating design registration can be achieved in this way will only be known years from now, once the shape of the final act has been decided by parliament and the new law fully tested by its users.
Dave A. Wyatt is executive director and head of the patents department at Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd. He can be contacted at:
dave@henrygoh.com
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010 87
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108