A BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE JURISDICTION REPORT: MALAYSIA
Chew Kherk Ying and Chen Hong Sze Wong & Partners
A trademark registration was invalidated by the Malaysian High Court as a result of a breach of natural justice. Te decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2012.
Te plaintiff, Ginvera Marketing Enterprise Sdn Bhd, developed an exfoliating gel product and started selling under the brand name ‘Marvel Gel’. In 1999, Ginvera applied to register ‘Marvel Gel’ as its trademark. Te defendant, Tohtonku Sdn Bhd, opposed Ginvera’s application when the trademark ‘Marvel Gel’ was advertised in the Government Gazette, contending that it had used the name as part of the description for one of its skin products, known as ‘Follow Me UV White Marvel Gel’. Despite the impending opposition proceedings, the registrar issued the Certificate of Registration for Marvel Gel even when a search conducted at the office of the registrar showed the legal status of Ginvera’s application as ‘pending (opposition)’.
In 2002, Ginvera made a claim against Tohtonku for its use of ‘Marvel Gel’ on the basis that such use infringed its ‘Marvel Gel’ trademark and/or constituted an act of passing off. Ginvera also claimed that the defendant’s subsequent use of ‘Renewal Gel’ in December 2002 amounted to passing off. Te High Court rejected Ginvera’s argument, holding that the Certificate of Registration had been issued in violation of the Trademarks Act and Trademarks Regulations which expressly provide for opposition. As Tohtonku had been denied the right to be heard in the opposition proceedings, the certificate had been obtained in breach of the principles of natural justice and was thus invalid. As such, Ginvera’s claim for trademark infringement could not stand as the ‘Marvel Gel’ mark was, in effect, unregistered at the relevant time.
Te court proceeded to consider the claim of passing off and found that the use of the words ‘Marvel Gel’ on Tohtonku’s products was unlikely to lead ordinary members of the public to believe that Tohtonku’s product was Ginvera’s Marvel Gel. Te reasoning for this was that the presentation of Tohtonku’s product was characteristically different from that of Ginvera and Ginvera had failed to establish that customers had been confused by Tohtonku’s use of ‘Marvel Gel’.
Further, the term ‘Marvel Gel’ was descriptive of the product in question and had not acquired a secondary meaning in law such that the public would associate the mark with Ginvera and not with the description concerned. Although Ginvera had submitted survey evidence to prove consumers’ confusion, the court did not give it any weight on the basis that (i) the survey was carried out aſter the commencement of the suit; (ii) the survey forms were never produced in court; (iii) the respective persons who conducted the interviews did not give evidence; and (iv) the questions
www.worldipreview.com
“AS TOHTONKU HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN THE OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS, THE CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.”
asked by the interviewee were framed in such a way to ensure a finding in favour of Ginvera.
Although the issues were not novel, this is the first time Malaysian courts have made a finding that a Certificate of Registration issued in violation of the provisions of the act and regulations which confer a substantive right to be heard by way of opposition procedure would be a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Chew Kherk Ying is a partner at Wong & Partners. She can be contacted at:
kherk.ying.chew@
wongpartners.com
Chen Hong Sze is an associate at Wong & Partners. She can be contacted at:
hong.sze.chen@
wongpartners.com
World Intellectual Property Review July/August 2012 63
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