BROTHERS IN ARMS JURISDICTION REPORT: MALAYSIA
Chew Kherk Ying and Sonia Ong Wong & Partners
On February 17, 2012, the Malaysian High Court held in favour of the plaintiffs in Burukan Bin Mohamed & Two Ors v Sirajudin Bin Y Mohamed Mydin & Tree Ors concerning the use of a mark in a family restaurant business and the parties’ agreement aſter parting ways.
Te first plaintiff (BBM) and the first defendant (SBMM) are brothers who wished to continue separately to run an Indian restaurant business inherited from their father, popularly known as Kayu Nasi Kandar, in Malaysia. To this end, the brothers entered into an agreement under which BBM retained control of two outlets and SBMM retained control of the remaining 10 outlets. Te parties also agreed that they would be allowed to continue using the trade name ‘Restoran Kayu Nasi Kandar’ for their “continuing business”.
Te dispute commenced when the plaintiffs claimed passing off against the second defendant, who had used a sign that was confusingly similar to the plaintiffs’. Although both parties were by virtue of the agreement permitted to use the same trade name, the colours, font and figurative elements comprising the second defendant’s sign closely resembled the plaintiffs’ sign, and evidence of public confusion was presented. Te defendants, however, counterclaimed for trademark infringement relying on their trademark registration for the figurative element of the sign contended by the plaintiffs as giving rise to passing off.
Before deciding on the parties’ respective claims, the court on its own motion determined two questions, namely (i) whether the term “continuing business” in the agreement meant that use of the trade name ‘Restoran Kayu Nasi Kandar’ by BBM was confined to the two outlets existing at the time of execution of the agreement or extended to future outlets he operated; and (ii) whether the second plaintiff—the business owned by BBM and his wife which was not party to the agreement—prevented the second plaintiff from using the trade name.
Te court answered the first question in the negative and held that the parties would have intended that each of them be allowed to use the trade name not only for their outlets existing at the time the agreement was executed, but also for future outlets. Te second question was also answered in the negative, although this appears to be a draſting error, as the court based its finding on the fact that BBM retained control over the operation of the second plaintiff’s outlets, suggesting that the court agreed that the second plaintiff comes within BBM’s “continuing business” and should therefore be allowed to use the trade name.
Te court upheld the plaintiffs’ claim of passing off on grounds that the overall look and feel of the second defendant’s sign too closely resembled
“THE COURT UPHELD THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF PASSING OFF ON GROUNDS THAT THE OVERALL LOOK AND FEEL OF THE SECOND DEFENDANT’S SIGN TOO CLOSELY RESEMBLED THE PLAINTIFFS’.”
the plaintiffs’, but dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim of infringement on grounds that
the plaintiffs’ sign was visually and phonetically
distinguishable from the defendants’ trademark registration, which demonstrates the stricter test applied in cases of infringement as opposed to passing off.
Chew Kherk Ying is a partner at Wong & Partners. She can be contacted at:
kherk.ying.chew@
wongpartners.com
Sonia Ong is an associate at Wong & Partners. She can be contacted at:
sonia.ong@wongpartners.com
106 World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012
www.worldipreview.com
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128