IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT)
|
|
- Baldric Christopher Neal
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 C THE 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION 2016 BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE CLAIMANT 1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION... 1II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES... 1V QUESTIONS PRESENTED... VIII STATEMENT OF FACTS... IX SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS... XII PLEADINGS... 1 I. THE APPLICABLE LAW THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED IS THE LAW OF MALAYSIA... 1 A. Malaysian Law should be the applicable law based on the conflict of law rule.. 1 B. The principle of lex loci delecti also points to Malaysian Law... 2 C. The principle of lex loci protectionis points to Malaysian Law... 2 D. The principle of lex contractus points to Malaysian Law... 3 E. Lex loci solutionis principle points to Malaysian Law... 3 F. Intention of the parties can be implied to have chosen Malaysian Law... 3 II. THE RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED CLAUSE 4.2 OF THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT... 5 A. The Respondent s mark is similar to the Claimant s lion logo mark... 5 B. Clause 4.2 of the Distribution Agreement is not a restraint of trade clause... 5 C. Concurrent actions in contract and torts are possible... 6 I
3 III. THE RESPONDENT S USE OF THE WORD CEYLON IS MISLEADING AS TO THE QUALITY AND ORIGIN OF THE GOODS. 7 A. The word Ceylon Tea is a protected geographical indication... 7 B. The use of such word could pass off as to the quality and origin of the goods... 8 IV. THE RESPONDENT S HAS INFRINGED THE CLAIMANT S MARK AND HAS PASSED OFF THEIR GOODS AS THAT OF THE CLAIMANT S A. The Respondent has infringed the Claimant s mark through their use of ATC s mark B. The tort of passing off has been committed by the Respondent PRAYER FOR RELIEF II
4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The parties, Chelsea Tea Company (the Claimant ) and Almond Tea Company (the Respondent ) hereby submit this dispute to arbitration in accordance with the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration ( i-arbitration Rules ) through Clause 22.1 of the Distribution Agreement (the Agreement ) entered by both parties on 20 th October Any award made by the tribunal will be final and binding pursuant to Rule 12(7) of KLRCA i-arbitration Rules. III
5 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AND REGULATIONS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights, 1 7 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 299 LEGISLATIONS Malaysian Geographical Indication Act , 8 Malaysian Trade Marks Act Sri Lanka Intellectual Property Act CASES Ak Koh Enterprise v A1 Best One Food Industries [2015] 9 MLJ Compagnie Generale Des Eaux v Compagnie Generale Des Eaux Sdn Bhd 11 [1996] MLJU 575 De Cordova v Vicks Chemical Co (1951) 68 RPC IV
6 Harrods Ltd v R. Harrod Ltd (1924) 41 RPC 74 8 Hendersen v Merret Syndicates [1994] UKHL 5. 6 Leo Pharmaceutical Products Ltd A/S v Kotra Pharma Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 9, 10, 12 MLJ 703 Lim Yew Sing v.hummel International Sports & Leisure A/S [1996] 3 MLJ 2 7 Maestro Swiss Chocolate Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chocosuisse Union Des 7, 8 Fabricants Suisse De Chocolate [2016] 2 MLJ 359 Mem Company Incorporated v Cussons (International) Limited [1974] RPC 10 7 Meidi-Ya Co Ltd Japan v Meidi-Ya (M) [2008] 6 MLJ Millennium Medicare Services v Nagadevan Mahalingam [2016] 2 CLJ 36 5 Mount Albert Borough Council v Australian Temperance and General 3 Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited [1938] A.C. 224 Mutiara Rini Sdn Bhd v The Corum View Hotel Sdn Bhd [2016] 7 MLJ , 13 V
7 Re Pianotist Co's Application ('Pianola') [1906] RPC Re Sandow Ltd's Application (1914) 31 RPC Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR Seet Chuan Seng & Anor v Tee Yih Jia Foods Manufacturing Pte Ltd [1994] 13 2 MLJ 770 Shaifubaharim bin Mohd v EM Exhibition (M) Sdn Bhd [2012] 9 MLJ Spalding Bros v Gamage (1915) 32 RPC TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd v Koay Sai Leat [2016] 8 MLJ , 13 The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Mueller & Co s Margarine Ltd 11 [1901] AC 217 The Scotch Whisky Association v Ewein Winery [1999] 6 MLJ Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v Superace (M) Sdn Bhd [1992] 2 MLJ Wallis v Smith [1882] 21 Ch D YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd v James Cape (Far East) Ltd [1997] 4 CLJ VI
8 Yong Sze Fun & Anor v Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 MLJ BOOKS Collins, L. (1987). Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws, Volume 1. 1 Stevens. Fawcett, J. J. & Torremans, P. (1998). Intellectual Property and Private 2 International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Jane C. Ginsburg, The Private International Law of Copyright in an Era of 2 Technological Change, 273 Recueil des cours 239 (1998) OTHER DOCUMENTS Dinwoodie, G. B. (January 19, 2001). WIPO Forum on Private International 2 Law and IntellectualProperty. WIPO/PIL/01/4 c Presentation by Mr. Hasita De Alwis: Ceylon Tea Sri Lanka s best known 7 Geographical Indication, 3 rd April 2013, WIPO/GEO/BKK/13 VII
9 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. What is the applicable law that should be referred to in this dispute. II. Whether or not ATC has breached the Agreement by distributing SAILOR S CEYLON affixed with the ATC s Mark in Malaysia. III. Whether or not ATC s use of the word CEYLON in respect of its tea products is misleading. IV. Whether or not ATC s use of the ATC s Mark amounts to trademark infringement and/or passing off. VIII
10 STATEMENT OF FACTS The Background All tea manufactured in Sri Lanka is monitored by Sri Lankan Tea Board ( SLTB ) a statutory body established under Sri Lankan Act of Parliament. SLTB is the registered owner of the famous Lion Logo, 1 which is affixed on all certified CEYLON TEA products. The Claimant, Chelsea Tea Company ( CTC ) is a company which manufactures Ceylon Tea under the brand CTC Ceylon based in Sri Lanka since Marvin Ranatunga is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CTC. The Respondent, Almond Tea Company is a Singaporean company managed by Phillip Chan which involves with the production and distribution of tea products in Malaysia and Singapore. The Agreement Ranatunga is interested to invest in Malaysian tea market, and is a registered proprietor of the Lion Logo in Malaysia. During his trip in 2008 to Cameron Highlands, Malaysia, he intended to have Philip Chan as CTC s distributor due to his vast knowledge on Malaysian market. Philip Chan rejected the offer as the distributorship agreement requires ATC to cease all of its sales on tea products. 1 Item numbered 1, Schedule 1 of the Distribution Agreement. IX
11 A fungal disease had infected ATC s source of tea a month after Philip Chan rejected Ranatunga s offer to become CTC s distributor. A second offer was made by Ranatunga, which resulted in the entry of the Distribution Agreement (the Agreement) by both parties on 20 th October 2008 with a nominal monetary consideration. The Agreement states amongst others as follows: During the Term and for a period of 12 months after it the Distributor must not be concerned or interested, either directly or indirectly, in the manufacture or distribution in the Territory of any goods that compete with the Products, affixed with the Trade Marks or any other arguably similar mark in the Territory. The Agreement also prohibits the Respondent from using any similar marks as the Lion Logo. This aforementioned term of the Agreement is disputed between the parties. Chelsea Tea Company The Claimant, CTC, is one of Ceylon Tea manufacturers originated from Sri Lanka and its tea products is from the Kandy District of Sri Lanka. CTC CEYLON are mainly marketed in Europe. After the distribution of CTC CEYLON by ATC in Malaysia, CTC garnered a strong consumer base in the country, and has then established its Southeast Asia headquarters in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. X
12 Almond Tea Company The Respondent, ATC, manufactures black tea products and its tea is cultivated in Malaysia and China. The tea from the brand SAILOR S CEYLON, is manufactured in Fujian Province in China, using seeds originated from Sri Lanka. ATC s main market is Southeast Asia, but their products are also marketed to other Asian countries, Germany and United Kingdom. Prior to the conclusion of the Distribution Agreement between the parties, ATC was involved with the manufacture and distribution of tea products in Malaysia and Singapore. The origin of the dispute It was known by CTC in March 2015 that ATC manufactures tea in China under a different brand named SAILOR S CEYLON. The product is also affixed with a mark, with lion as its subject matter. CTC contended that ATC had breached the Agreement between them and demands for ATC to stop the usage of the word CEYLON on their products. ATC denied all liability and contended that they have legal rights to use the word CEYLON and use ATC s Mark on their products. The arbitration proceeding As there is a failure to settle the dispute, the parties submit the matter before the arbitration panel pursuant to Clause 22.1 of the Agreement which states that the arbitration will be governed by KLRCA-i Arbitration Rules and will take place in Colombo, Sri Lanka. XI
13 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS I. The applicable law that should be applied to the merits of the case is Malaysian law. II. The Respondent has breached clause 4.2 of the Distribution Agreement by manufacturing and selling their tea product embedded with trademark similar to the Lion Logo. III. The use of the word CEYLON by the Respondent is misleading as to the quality and origin of the goods. IV. The Respondent has infringed the Claimant s mark and has passed off their goods at the Claimant s. XII
14 PLEADINGS I. THE APPLICABLE LAW TO BE APPLIED TO THIS DISPUTE IS MALAYSIAN LAW. The applicable law to be applied to the substantive part of this dispute is Malaysian Law based on the (A) conflict of laws rule; (B) lex loci delicti; (C) lex loci protectionis; (D) lex contractus; (E) lex loci solutionis; and (F) from the intention of the parties. Based on the aforementioned reasons, Malaysian law can be implied. A. The principle of conflict of laws rule points to Malaysia as the applicable law. Section 22 of the Agreement 2 between the parties states that the arbitration will be governed by the KLRCA i-arbitration Rules ( Rules ).Article 35 of the said Rules 3 states that if there is an absence of agreement on the applicable law to be used for the merits of the case, the Arbitrator can decide by using the conflict of laws rules. The conflict of laws rule to be applied is by using the system of law with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection. 4 The transaction has its closest and most real connection in Malaysia as the breach committed by the Respondent materialized in Malaysia. Thus, the applicable conflict of laws rule is lex loci delicti as the Respondent has breached the Agreement in Malaysia. 2 Appendix A, Distribution Agreement between Chelsea Tea Company and Almond Tea Company [Agreement]. 3 KLRCA i-arbitration Rules 4 YK Fung Securities Sdn Bhd v James Cape (Far East) Ltd [1997] 4 CLJ 300; Collins, L. (1987). Dicey and Morris on Conflict of Laws, Volume 1. Stevens. 1
15 B. The principle of lex loci delecti for an action of passing off also points to Malaysia as the applicable law. In the case of Meidi-Ya Co Ltd Japan v Meidi-Ya (M) 5, an action is taken on the ground that the Defendant uses the Plaintiff s trademark Meidi-Ya, the differences being the dash between the word Meidi and Ya. The court held that for passing off, an action can only be taken in a country, using the laws of that country where the damage to the goodwill occurred. And in the tort of passing off goodwill is territorial in scope while reputation as generally understood thereof requires some form of business in the territory in question. Thus, Malaysian Law is the applicable law to this dispute based on the conflict of laws rule of lex loci delicti. C. The principle of lex loci protectionis points to Malaysia as the applicable law. The principle of territoriality is a ground to the principle of lex loci protectionis. 6 Trademark law is territorial in nature. 7 Hence, the question of whether trademark rights exist or whether the infringement of the said trademark has occurred is prominently determined by the law of the country in which protection is claimed. 8 One of the claims made by the Claimant is that the Respondent infringed the Claimant s trademark that has been registered and protected in Malaysia. Hence, Malaysian law should apply. 5 [2008] 6 MLJ Fawcett, J. J. & Torremans, P. (1998). Intellectual Property and Private International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 7 Jane C. Ginsburg, The Private International Law of Copyright in an Era of Technological Change, 273 Recueil des cours 239 (1998); Lim Yew Sing v.hummel International Sports & Leisure A/S [1996] 3 MLJ 7. 8 Dinwoodie, G. B. (January 19, 2001). WIPO Forum on Private International Law and Intellectual Property. WIPO/PIL/01/4. Retrieved from at para 63. 2
16 D. The principle of lex contractus points to Malaysia as the applicable law. Lex loci contractus is the law of the place in which the contract was made. Therefore, since the Distribution Agreement was signed in Malaysia 9, Malaysian law should be the applicable law to the dispute. E. The principle of lex loci solutionis points to Malaysia as the applicable law. Lex loci solutionis is the law of the place where performance of the contract was due. In this case, Malaysia is the place where performance of the contract was due, because the Respondent has agreed to distribute Claimant s tea product in Malaysia. Furthermore, the Claimant has agreed to pay the Respondent s for their services in Ringgit Malaysia. 10 F. Intention of the parties can be impliedly to have agreed that Malaysian law is the applicable law. In the case of Mount Albert Borough Council v Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited 11, the Privy Council held that: English law in deciding these matters has treated the matter as depending on the intention of the parties, to be ascertained in each case on a consideration of the terms of the contract, the situation of the parties, and generally on all the surrounding facts. Hence, it can be seen that it was the intention of the parties to apply Malaysian law as the applicable law because the consideration given by the Claimant to 9 Question 2 of the Clarifications to the Moot Problem [Clarifications]. 10 Clause of the Distribution Agreement. 11 [1938] A.C
17 the Respondent, is in a form of monetary consideration, paid in Ringgit Malaysia 12. Moreover, the consideration from the Respondent to the Claimant is their services to distribute the Claimant s tea products in Malaysia. Other fact such as the restriction imposed on the Respondent by the Claimant is only with regards to the matter of distribution in Malaysia. This shows that the Claimant is not interested in any conduct of the Respondent performed outside of Malaysia. In addition, the Agreement was signed in Malaysia. Furthermore, the parties agree to abide by the KLRCA Rules even though the location of the arbitration is to take place in Sri Lanka. In conclusion, it can be seen that it was the intention of the parties at all times that Malaysian law is the applicable law to this dispute. 12 Clause of the Agreement. 4
18 II. THE RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED THE AGREEMENT The Respondent has breached clause 4.2 of the Agreement by (A) using ATC s Mark 13 that is similar to the Lion logo. In the event that the Respondent contends Clause 4.2 is a restraint of trade clause, the Claimant submits otherwise because (B) clause 4.2 does not have the effect of restraining the Respondent from carrying out their trade. Furthermore, it is submitted that (C) it is possible to take a concurrent actions in contract and tort. A. ATC s Mark is arguably similar to the Lion Logo. Clause 4.2 needs to be interpreted in its literal meaning 14. Hence, any use of mark that is arguably similar to the Lion Logo amounts to a breach of agreement. ATC s Mark is using a Lion device, positioned similar to that of the Lion Logo of the Claimant. In addition, they both contain a line Symbol of Quality in their mark. Hence, assessing these two marks in their entireties, it can said that ATC s Mark is similar to the Lion Logo. The Respondent has breached Clause 4.2 of the Agreement. B. Clause 4.2 of the Agreement is not a restraint of trade clause. In the case of Millennium Medicare Services v Nagadevan Mahalingam, 15 the court held that clause 11 (iii) has the effect of restricting the liberty of the appellant to carry on the practice of medical practitioner in future either by himself or with other persons for such period and within such limit as specified. The court therefore concluded that it is an agreement in restraint of 13 Moot Problem, Wallis v Smith [1882] 21 Ch D [2016] 2 CLJ 36. 5
19 trade within the meaning of section 28 of the Act 16. A distinction can be drawn between our case with the case of Nagadevan. The effect of clause 4.2 does not extend to manufacturing and distributing teas that are not affixed with the Lion Logo. Hence, the Respondent can distribute any tea from any part of the world, but not Ceylon Tea. It is submitted that clause 4.2 of the Agreement is not a restraint of trade clause. C. Concurrent actions in contract and torts are possible. According to the case of Hendersen v Merret Syndicates, it is held that tortious duty of care may arise not only in cases where the relevant services are rendered gratuitously, but also where they are rendered under a contract. 17 Hence, the Claimant is justified in taking action both under the tort of passing off as well as contract as the Respondent has breached clause 4.2 of the Agreement by using similar trademark on their products. 16 Malaysian Contract Act 1950, Act [1994] UKHL 5. 6
20 III. THE USE OF THE WORD CEYLON BY THE RESPONDENT ON THEIR TEA PRODUCTS IS MISLEADING AS TO THE QUALITY AND ORIGIN OF THE GOODS The Respondent s use of the word CEYLON is misleading as (A) The word CEYLON TEA is a protected geographical indication and (B) The use of such word could pass off as to the quality and origin of the goods. A. CEYLON TEA is a protected geographical indication Malaysia has the obligation to protect 18 geographical indication of other WTO Member States as a signatory to The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Although CEYLON TEA is not a registered geographical indication in Malaysia, protection can be given to unregistered 19 geographical indication under Malaysian Act. The word CEYLON TEA has obtained home registration in Sri Lanka 20 which is a prerequisite 21 for a geographical indication to be protected and this allows the protection under Sri Lanka Intellectual Property Act 22 to be extended to Malaysia Geographical Indication Act (GIA). 18 Article 22, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights, 1 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 299, [TRIPS]. 19 Section 3, Geographical Indication Act Malaysia 2000 [GIA]. 20 Presentation by Mr. Hasita De Alwis: Ceylon Tea Sri Lanka s best known Geographical Indication, 3 rd April 2013, WIPO/GEO/BKK/ Article 24, TRIPS; Section 4, GIA. 22 Section 104, Section 191, Sri Lanka Intellectual Property Act
21 This allows the Claimant, as the interested person 23 under the GIA Malaysia 24 to bring an action against the Respondent who used the word CEYLON on their goods and could mislead the public through the use of such word. B. The use of the word CEYLON could pass off as to the quality and origin of the goods. The Respondent has impliedly represented their goods as the goods of the Claimant by using the word CEYLON on its tea products together with the ATC s Mark which bore similarities to the Claimant s Lion Logo. The Respondent s Sailor s Ceylon does not possess the same quality 25 as the Claimant s tea because the tea does not comply with the standard required by Sri Lankan Tea Board 26 (SLTB) and were manufactured in China 27 instead of Sri Lanka. Although the Respondent only uses the word CEYLON, the use of such word on tea products could import a reference that it is Ceylon Tea. The word CEYLON used by the Respondent on their products were also accompanied by the ATC s Mark that is similar to the SLTB Lion Logo. Considering these two elements and the circumstances of the business 28 of both parties, the 23 Maestro Swiss Chocolate Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chocosuisse Union Des Fabricants Suisse De Chocolate [2016] 2 MLJ 359 at Section 5, GIA. 25 The Scotch Whisky Association v Ewein Winery [1999] 6 MLJ 280 at 296; Maestro Swiss at Question 4 of Additional Clarifications. 27 Moot Problem, 14; Question 12 of Additional Clarifications. 28 Maestro Swiss at 79. 8
22 Respondent has misrepresented 29 their goods as the Claimant s goods or intended their tea products to be associated with the Claimant s product. The use of the word Ceylon by the respondent could also amount to the extended form of passing off 30 apart from misrepresenting the product under the Geographical Indication Act. 29 Maestro Swiss Maestro Swiss 8; Spalding Bros v Gamage (1915) 32 RPC 273; Harrods Ltd v R. Harrod Ltd (1924) 41 RPC 74. 9
23 IV. THE RESPONDENT HAS INFRINGED THE CLAIMANT S MARK AND HAS PASSED OFF THEIR GOODS AS THE CLAIMANT S The use of ATC s mark which possess the same features as SLTB s Lion Logo amounts to (A) trademark infringement under Malaysian Trade Marks Act 1976 and (B) passing off under common law A. The Respondent infringed the Claimant s mark through their use of their ATC s mark As a registered user 31 of SLTB s Lion Logo, the Claimant has the rights to take action against any person who uses a similar mark as the registered mark. 32 Since SLTB Lion s Logo is a registered mark in Malaysia 33, the Claimant has rights to claim for trademark infringement over the use of a similar mark by the Respondent. The Respondent has fulfilled all the necessary requirements 34 to establish trademark infringement, which are (1) defendant is not a registered use or proprietor of the mark; (2) the mark is identical or so nearly resembling the registered mark; (3) mark used in the course of trade; (4) mark used in the same class of goods and services; and lastly (5) mark used has imported a reference to the registered mark. ATC s Mark is unregistered 35 ; hence the Respondent is not a registered user or proprietor of any mark under Malaysia Trade Marks Act Moot Problem, Section 38, Malaysian Trade Marks Act Moot Problem, Leo Pharmaceutical Products Ltd A/S v Kotra Pharma Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 MLJ 703 at Question 1 of Clarifications. 10
24 A likelihood of confusion is sufficient to fulfil the second element. A customer will not make a detailed examination 36 to the product, and the test of imperfect recollection 37 will be used to assess the likelihood of confusion. In determining the likelihood of confusion, the marks must be looked as a whole. 38 This includes the similarities in the colour, and the main idea of the mark, 39 that is the lion, is the essential point 40. It is the submission of the Claimant that since it is directly in competition with one another, the likelihood of confusion is higher. 41 There are five (5) qualities of ATC s Mark that resemble the Claimant s lion logo, that is firstly, the colour of the mark; 42 second, the box of the mark which uses round edges; third, the animal used in both logos are lion; fourth, the placing of the words are both at the bottom part of the mark; and lastly, both marks have the word SYMBOL OF QUALITY on it. 43 The ATC s Mark has been used in the course of trade 44 and both marks are directly competing with one another, 45 as it is in the same class of goods and services pursuant to class 30 of Nice classification. 46 Considering the surrounding circumstances of the mark, particularly the colour and layout of 36 Ak Koh Enterprise v A1 Best One Food Industries [2015] 9 MLJ 715 at Re Sandow Ltd's Application (1914) 31 RPC Re Pianotist Co's Application ('Pianola') [1906] RPC 774; Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v Superace (M) Sdn Bhd [1992] 2 MLJ 63; Shaifubaharim bin Mohd v EM Exhibition (M) Sdn Bhd [2012] 9 MLJ 84; TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd v Koay Sai Leat [2016] 8 MLJ 779 at Mem Company Incorporated v Cussons (International) Limited [1974] RPC 7; TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd v Koay Sai Leat [2016] 8 MLJ 779 at Ak Koh enterprise v A1 Best One Food Industries [2015] 9 MLJ 715 at Ak Koh enterprise v A1 Best One Food Industries [2015] 9 MLJ 715 at 28; Leo Pharmaceutical Products Ltd A/S v Kotra Pharma Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 MLJ 703 at Question 7 of the Clarifications. 43 Moot Problem, 3, Question 8 of Clarifications. 45 Question 23 of the Clarifications. 46 Classification of Goods and Services, retrieved from 11
25 the mark, it could import a reference that it is related to the Claimant s mark. Hence, the Respondent has infringed Section 38 of Trade Marks Act by using ATC s mark on their goods. B. The tort of passing off has been committed by the Respondent The parties in this matter have fulfilled the three (3) requirements 47 to establish passing off, which are (1) there is a goodwill and reputation (2) there is a misrepresentation and (3) the claimant had suffered damage from the sale of the Respondent s tea products. 1) The Claimant has sufficient goodwill and reputation to initiate passing off A goodwill is the benefit of a good name and it must be able to have a force which cause the consumer to purchase the goods. 48 The goodwill is not on the mark but rather on the consumer of the product. 49 It is evident that the Claimant has developed a strong consumer base in Malaysia through its business in Malaysia for the past years 50 and CTC CEYLON s headquarters was established in Kuala Lumpur to support their Southeast Asian Market pursuant to the positive response in Malaysia. The Claimant also carries out their businesses outside of Malaysia Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491 at The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Mueller & Co s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC Mutiara Rini Sdn Bhd v The Corum View Hotel Sdn Bhd [2016] 7 MLJ 771 at 19; Compagnie Generale Des Eaux v Compagnie Generale Des Eaux Sdn Bhd [1996] MLJU Moot Problem, Question 9 of Clarifications. 12
26 2) The Respondent has falsely misrepresented their goods as the Claimant s due to its similarities The essential element for passing off is there must be a false representation that could cause confusion to ordinary consumers. 52 The imperfect recollection test 53 must be applied to determine the likelihood of confusion instead of comparing the marks side by side. Seeing the marks in totality, it possesses similar characteristics so to cause confusion to the general public. The marks used by CTC CEYLON and SAILOR s CEYLON are similar. Firstly, the marks are of the same colour. Secondly, it uses the same round edge for the box. Thirdly, the marks contain lion as the dominant feature. Fourthly, the phrase SYMBOL OF QUALITY is apparent on both marks. Lastly, the words and phrases for both marks were placed at the bottom of the mark. 3) Damage has been suffered by the Claimant The damage need not be actual damage, and the possibility for the goodwill of business to be damaged 54 is sufficient to establish this element. The Claimant has indeed suffered a drop by thirty percent (30%) in 2013 and further drop by fifteen percent (15%) in Yong Sze Fun & Anor v Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 MLJ De Cordova v Vicks Chemical Co (1951) 68 RPC Leo Pharmaceutical Products Ltd A/S v Kotra Pharma Sdn Bhd [2009] 5 MLJ Question 10 of Clarifications. 13
27 Although the fact is silent as to the cause of the drop in sales, it is safe to infer that the drop in the year 2013 has been contributed by the emergence of the Respondent s products. This is because Sailor s Ceylon were distributed in November 2012, 56 and the sale for the Claimant s product occur in the year 2013, the following year. Due to this, the court may consider that this is a damage to the goodwill 57 and distinctiveness 58 of the Claimant s mark. Having fulfilled all of the requirements to initiate a claim of passing off, it is submitted that the Respondent has passed off their goods as the Claimant s through the use of ATC s logo on their tea products which is similar to SLTB s Lion Logo. 56 Moot Problem, Seet Chuan Seng & Anor v Tee Yih Jia Foods Manufacturing Pte Ltd [1994] 2 MLJ 770; TC Pharmaceutical Industries Co Ltd v Koay Sai Leat [2016] 8 MLJ 779 at Mutiara Rini Sdn Bhd v The Corum View Hotel Sdn Bhd [2016] 7 MLJ
28 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF The Claimant plead for this tribunal to adjudge and declare that: 1. The applicable law to be applied to the merits of the dispute is Malaysian law; 2. The Respondent breached clause 4.2 of the Distibution Agreement hence making them liable for damages; 3. The use of the word CEYLON by the Respondent is misleading hence a declaration from the tribunal that the Respondent to stop using the name SAILOR S CEYLON if their tea products that were not produced in Sri Lanka; and 4. That the Respondent has infringed the Claimant s trademark protected under the Trade Marks Act 1976 and in the alternatives, has committed the tort of passing off. Respectfully submitted, CHELSEA TEA COMPANY, THE CLAIMANT 15 th JULY
IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT)
1026 - R THE 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION 2016 BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CTC) (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (ATC) (RESPONDENT)
More informationThe 11th LAWASIA International Moot Competition at Colombo Sri Lanka ARBITRATION REGARDING THE USE OF CERTAIN PHRASES AND MARKS IN
Code: 1019-C The 11th LAWASIA International Moot Competition 2016 at Colombo Sri Lanka 2016 ARBITRATION REGARDING THE USE OF CERTAIN PHRASES AND MARKS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE CHELSEA TEA COMPANY
More informationKUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION COLOMBO, SRI LANKA ARBITRATION REGARDING THE SALE OF CEYLON TEA BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY CLAIMANT AND
11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION COLOMBO, SRI LANKA 2016 ARBITRATION REGARDING THE SALE OF CEYLON TEA BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY CLAIMANT AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY
More informationCEYLON TEA COMPANY ALMOND TEA COMPANY 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2016 COLOMBO, SRI LANKA C 1027 R. held at
C 1027 R 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2016 held at COLOMBO, SRI LANKA Arbitration proceedings in accordance with KLRAC i-arbitration Rules CEYLON TEA COMPANY (Claimant) Versus ALMOND TEA
More informationAT THE THAI ARBITRATION INSTITUTE (BANGKOK) CASE CONCERNING THE INCIDENT IN MAE SOT FACTORY THE INJURED VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED VICTIMS
THE 9 th LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2014 AT THE THAI ARBITRATION INSTITUTE (BANGKOK) 2014 CASE CONCERNING THE INCIDENT IN MAE SOT FACTORY THE INJURED VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED VICTIMS
More information11 TH LAW ASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2016 KUALA LAMPUR ARBITRATION REGIONAL CENTRE MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT
11 TH LAW ASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT, 2016 KUALA LAMPUR ARBITRATION REGIONAL CENTRE MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF ALMOND TEA COMPANY AGAINST CHELSEA TEA COMPANY RESPONDENT CLAIMANT CONTENTS
More informationKUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE CLAIMANT
THE 11 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION 2016 BETWEEN CHELSEA TEA COMPANY (CLAIMANT) AND ALMOND TEA COMPANY (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE CLAIMANT TABLE
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, No. 22 of 2014
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, 2014 2002 No. 22 of 2014 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationMALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING SUIT NO III BETWEEN
[S-22-231-09-III] MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING SUIT NO. 22-231-09-III BETWEEN KUANG PEI SAN FOOD PRODUCTS PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED No. 88/9 MOO 4, KUANG PEI SAN ROAD TUMBON
More informationIN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BETWEEN JACK SMALL LTD. (CLAIMANT) AND TAN SEN IMPORTS LTD. (RESPONDENT)
THE 8 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION 2013 BETWEEN JACK SMALL LTD. (CLAIMANT) AND TAN SEN IMPORTS LTD. (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
More informationPersonal Data Protection Act Trinity Group Sdn. Bhd. v. Trinity Corporation Berhad - A Case Note
August 2013 Personal Data Protection Act 2010 2 Trinity Group Sdn. Bhd. v. Trinity Corporation Berhad - A Case Note Mastering the Specialised Art of Designing Surveys For Use In IP Trials 4 5 Industrial
More informationMALAYSIA COUNTRY REPORT FOR APAA 2015 TRADE MARK COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENTS:- Legislative
(I) (i) MALAYSIA COUNTRY REPORT FOR APAA 2015 TRADE MARK COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENTS:- Legislative There was no recent development or change in the Malaysian Trade Marks Act (ii) Other The ASEAN TMview website
More informationAct No. 8 of 2015 BILL
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 54, No. 64, 16th June, 2015 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 8 of
More informationAct 17 Trademarks Act 2010
ACTS SUPPLEMENT No. 7 3rd September, 2010. ACTS SUPPLEMENT to The Uganda Gazette No. 53 Volume CIII dated 3rd September, 2010. Printed by UPPC, Entebbe, by Order of the Government. Act 17 Trademarks Act
More informationTrade mark Protection Law and Strategy in Hong Kong
Trade mark Protection Law and Strategy in Hong Kong By Barry Yen, So Keung Yip & Sin, Hong Kong First published on Bloomberg BNA I. Introduction Although officially part of China since 1997 Hong Kong maintains
More informationIsrael Israël Israel. Report Q191. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND. Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications
Israel Israël Israel Report Q191 in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications Questions I) Analysis of current legislation and case law 1) Do
More informationMalaysia Malaisie Malaysia. Report Q192. in the name of the Malaysian Group. Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Malaysia Malaisie Malaysia Report Q192 in the name of the Malaysian Group Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if their
More informationSeat v Venue. 8 May
Seat v Venue Is the Arbitration governed by Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005? Seat of Arbitration as distinct from Venue Lex Arbitri not Lex Contractus Jurisdictional Law of the Arbitration Is Seat = Malaysia?
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. ( The Tribunal ) CASE NO: CT021MARCH 2015
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ( The Tribunal ) CASE NO: CT021MARCH 2015 Re: In an Application in terms of Section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 ( the Act ) for a determination
More informationREPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO. 146 OF 2011 MOLOLINE SERVICES LIMITED...
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO. 146 OF 2011 MOLOLINE SERVICES LIMITED...PLAINTIFF VERSUS MOLINE LIMITED..1 ST DEFENDANT THE REGISTRAR OF
More informationTHE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TRADEMARK LAW
THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TRADEMARK LAW Effective from May 1, 2014 CHINA TRADEMARK LAW Effective from May 1 st, 2014 Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People
More informationTrademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention
Vol. 9(2), pp. 9-25, July 2017 DOI:10.5897/JLCR2016.0247 Article Number: DAEBDB265459 ISSN 2006-9804 Copyright 2017 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/jlcr Journal
More informationCZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004
CZECH REPUBLIC Trademark Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: April 1, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I TRADE MARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Definition of a trade mark Section
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRETORIA) FOUNTAINHEAD PROPERTY TRUST CENTURION SUBURBS MALL (PTY) LTD DECISION
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRETORIA) Case No.: CT 003FEB2015 In the matter between: FOUNTAINHEAD PROPERTY TRUST Applicant and CENTURION SUBURBS MALL (PTY) LTD Respondent DECISION INTRODUCTION
More informationAPAA TRADE MARK COMMITTEE REPORT 2009 MALAYSIA. by Linda Wang TAY & PARTNERS
APAA TRADE MARK COMMITTEE REPORT 2009 MALAYSIA by Linda Wang TAY & PARTNERS Part I LEGISLATIVE CHANGES There has been no amendment to the Trade Marks Act 1976 or the Trade Marks Regulation 1997 since the
More informationWIPO INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ORIGINAL: English DATE: April 2004 E SULTANATE OF OMAN SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY organized by the World Intellectual
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332)
TRADE MARKS ACT (CHAPTER 332) History Act 46 of 1998 -> 1999 REVISED EDITION -> 2005 REVISED EDITION An Act to establish a new law for trade marks, to enable Singapore to give effect to certain international
More informationPARALLEL IMPORTS HOW TO MANAGE THE PROBLEM By: Olasupo Shasore SAN
PARALLEL IMPORTS HOW TO MANAGE THE PROBLEM By: Olasupo Shasore SAN Parallel importation occurs when - a genuine product of a particular trade mark owner or his licensee - which is intended for sale in
More informationTrade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Trade Marks Act* (Act No. 11 of 1955, as last amended by Act No. 31 of 1997) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Short title... 1 Interpretation... 2 The Register Register of Trade Marks... 3 Application of
More informationLaw on Trademarks and Geographical Indications
Disclaimer: The English language text below is provided by the Translation and Terminology Centre for information only; it confers no rights and imposes no obligations separate from those conferred or
More informationMALAYSIA Trademarks Regulations as amended by PU (A) 47 of 2011 ENTRY INTO FORCE: February 15, 2011
MALAYSIA Trademarks Regulations as amended by PU (A) 47 of 2011 ENTRY INTO FORCE: February 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Citation and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Fees. 4. Forms.
More informationSETTLEMENT & COEXISTENCE AGREEMENTS
SETTLEMENT & COEXISTENCE AGREEMENTS ARNOLD CEBALLOS Pain & Ceballos LLP, Toronto, Canada VIRGINIA TAYLOR, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, Georgia USA Purpose: Many trademark disputes are resolved
More information#25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 30 th May, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T
#25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM)117/2017 SANDISK CORPORATION Through versus J K ELECTRONICS & ORS Through... Plaintiff Ms. Shwetashree Majumder with Ms. Pritika Kohli, Advocates...
More informationTAMAK DISTRIBUTION LTD & ANOR v PENTAGON UNIVERSAL LTD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. [Court of Civil Appeal]
TAMAK DISTRIBUTION LTD & ANOR v PENTAGON UNIVERSAL LTD 2015 SCJ 86 SCR No. 1152 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS [Court of Civil Appeal] In the matter of: 1. Tamak Distribution Ltd 2. Tamak Retail Ltd
More informationTHE TRADE MARKS ACT, (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009)
THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 2009 (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009) An Act to repeal the existing law and to re-enact the same with amendments and to consolidate the laws relating to trade marks. Whereas
More informationTRUE AUSSIE TRADE MARK LICENCE APPLICATION AUSTRALIAN USERS
TRUE AUSSIE TRADE MARK LICENCE APPLICATION AUSTRALIAN USERS THIS SECTION IS FOR MLA USE ONLY Date of Commencement Licensed trade mark Term Type of licence 12 months unless terminated earlier in accordance
More information10th Anniversary Edition The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook. Malaysia
10th Anniversary Edition 2016-2017 The Baker McKenzie International Arbitration Yearbook Malaysia 2017 Arbitration Yearbook Malaysia Malaysia Elaine Yap 1 A. Legislation and rules A.1 Legislation Arbitration
More informationLEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LEGAL SYSTEMS IN ASEAN SINGAPORE CHAPTER 5 BUSINESS LAW (PART 4): THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Gerald TAN Senior Associate, OC Queen Street LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS A. FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL
More informationNOTICE OF ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
More informationACT ON TRADE MARKS PART ONE TRADE MARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS
Act No. 441/2003 Coll. of December 3, 2003, on Trademarks and on Amendments to Act No. 6/2002 Coll. on Judgments, Judges, Assessors and State Judgment Administration and on Amendments to Some Other Acts
More informationLaw on Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin
Law on Trademarks and Indications of Geographical Origin Adopted: Entered into Force: Published: 16.06.1999 15.07.1999 Vēstnesis, 01.07.1999, Nr. 216 With the changes of 08.11.2001 Chapter I General Provisions
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001APR2017 PWC Business Trust APPLICANT AND PWC Group (Pty) Ltd RESPONDENT Issue for determination: Objection
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: CT010MAY2017 In the matter between: JÔST GMBH+CO.KG APPLICANT and JOEST ELECTRICAL AND AIRCONDITIONING (PTY) LTD (Registration No. 2016/002986/07) RESPONDENT
More informationTHE LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BANGKOK, THAILAND BETWEEN
B1408-C THE LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION BANGKOK, THAILAND 2014 BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF TEXTILE WORKERS (ICSTW) (CLAIMANT) AND
More informationAPPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956.
APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW IN MALAYSIA 3.1Introduction The application of English Law in Malaysia is restricted under the Civil law Act 1956. The common law of English and rules of equity is only applicable
More informationCase 2:17-cv EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-01100-EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION Trent Baker Baker & Associates PLLC 358 S 700 E B154 Salt Lake City,
More informationTRADE MARKS ACT, 1999
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH A DRAFT BILL OF THE PROPOSED TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Prepared in the light of the complete report made by the Bangladesh Law Commission recommending promulgation
More informationIN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA BETWEEN THE NEPALESE GOVERNMENT (CLAIMANT) AND
A1502-R THE 10 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA 2015 BETWEEN THE NEPALESE GOVERNMENT (CLAIMANT) AND THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM
More informationDALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANGKUSASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO: W-02-2133-2011 ANTARA BOUNTY DYNAMICS SDN BHD (dahulunya dikenali sebagai MEDA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD) PERAYU DAN CHOW TAT MING DAN 175
More informationREQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT)
More informationGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Law Division)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Law Division) THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1940 (V of 1940) (As modified up to the 11 th March, 1979) SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement.
More informationIntellectual Property News September 2015
Intellectual Property News September 2015 We are delighted to share with you the latest edition of our newsletter covering the latest Intellectual Property developments in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.
More informationCase 3:17-cv JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Case No.
Case 3:17-cv-01907-JCH Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PEAK WELLNESS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, Case No. Plaintiff, v.
More informationDesigns. A Global Guide. Malaysia. Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt
Designs 2018 A Global Guide Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Dave A Wyatt Malaysia Henry Goh & Co Sdn Bhd Author Dave A Wyatt Legal framework The protection of industrial designs in Malaysia is governed
More informationTrade Marks Act 1994
Trade Marks Act 1994 An unofficial consolidation of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as amended by: $ the Trade Marks (EC Measures Relating to Counterfeit Goods) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/1444) (1 st July 1995);
More information$~OS-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: CS(COMM) 69/2017. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
$~OS-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 06.07.2018 + CS(COMM) 69/2017 SANDISK LLC Through versus... Plaintiff Mr.Prithvi Singh, Adv. MANISH VAGHELA & ORS. Through None....
More informationREPUBLIC OF GEORGIA LAW ON TRADEMARKS
REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA LAW ON TRADEMARKS Georgian National Intellectual Property Center "SAKPATENTI" TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE OF THE LAW ARTICLE 2. EXPRESSIONS USED
More informationHow Consent To Use Affects Ownership Rights To A Registered Trademark
Malaysia How Consent To Use Affects Ownership Rights To A Registered Trademark A CASE NOTE BY MIKE HO MUN KEAT. Introduction Can consent to use a registered trade mark be considered an abandonment by the
More informationENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS Liabilities and Powers
ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS 1.0 Who is an Engineer? 1.1 A loose term, no common law definition. 1.2 Vague and circular definition given in section 2, Registration of Engineers Act, 1967 ( Engineers
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC ) ) v. ) Case No. 18-2516 ) John Does 1-81 ) Judge: ) ) Magistrate: ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff
More informationThe Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] CHAPTER I Preliminary
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (No. 47 of 1999) [30 th December, 1999] An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks, to provide for registration and better protection of trade marks for goods
More informationLaw On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin
Text consolidated by Valsts valodas centrs (State Language Centre) with amending laws of: 8 November 2001 [shall come into force on 1 January 2002]; 21 October 2004 [shall come into force on 11 November
More informationDECISION. The Verified Petition for Cancellation was filed on April 14, 2003 wherein Petitioner relied on the following grounds for cancellation:
FERRERO S.P.A. } IPC No. 14-2003-00031 Petitioner } Petition for Cancellation: } -versus- } Registration No.: 4-1993-92178 } Date Issued: 4 September 2000 SOLDAN HOLDING BONBON- } SPEZIALITATEN GmbH }
More informationCreative Youth Programme Official Rules
Creative Youth Programme Official Rules Thematic District Pavilions Design Contest Official Rules ABOUT THE THEMATIC DISTRICT PAVILIONS DESIGN CONTEST As part of its youth engagement strategy, seeks to
More informationSNOMED CT Grant of License of the Swedish National Release
SNOMED CT Grant of License of the Swedish National Release [1 July 2015] TABLE OF CONTENTS SNOMED CT SWEDISH NATIONAL RELEASE AFFILIATE LICENCE AGREEMENT... 3 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION... 3 2. DEFINITIONS...
More informationUNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017.
UNITED KINGDOM Trade Marks Act Last updated on 27 April 2017. TABLE OF CONTENTS ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I REGISTERED TRADE MARKS Introductory 1. 2. Grounds for refusal of registration 3. 4. 5. 6.
More informationIN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA BETWEEN THE NEPALESE GOVERNMENT (CLAIMANT) AND
A1502-C THE 10 TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA 2015 BETWEEN THE NEPALESE GOVERNMENT (CLAIMANT) AND THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM
More informationENTERTAINMENT IDENTIFIER REGISTRY TERMS OF USE
ENTERTAINMENT IDENTIFIER REGISTRY TERMS OF USE If You visit any EIDR site (located at *.eidr.org); use any EIDR service; or use other services, products, software, or applications provided by EIDR (collectively
More informationMSC TRUSTGATE.COM SDN BHD LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SYMANTEC SECURED SEAL
MSC TRUSTGATE.COM SDN BHD LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SYMANTEC SECURED SEAL YOU MUST READ THIS MSC TRUSTGATE.COM SDN BHD ( MSC TRUSTGATE ) LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SYMANTEC SECURED SEAL ("SEAL LICENSE AGREEMENT")
More informationCase 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed // Page of H. STAN JOHNSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: BRIAN A. MORRIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC Dean Martin Drive, Ste. G Las Vegas, NV (0-00 Attorneys for Plaintiff
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA FANN WOW GALLERY (APPELLANT) DATO RASHID (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
1606A COURT OF APPEAL, MALAYSIA 2016 FANN WOW GALLERY (APPELLANT) V. DATO RASHID (RESPONDENT) MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENTS... 1 INDEX... 3 SUMMARY OF FACTS...4 SUMMARY
More informationLAW OF GEORGIA ON TRADEMARKS CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
LAW OF GEORGIA ON TRADEMARKS CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE I. AIM OF THE LAW The Law regulates the relations connected with registration and protection of trademarks, service marks and collective
More informationTOBII PRO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE AGREEMENT
TOBII PRO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT LICENSE AGREEMENT Document version 1.1 PREAMBLE This Tobii Pro Software Development Kit License Agreement (the "Agreement") forms a legally binding contract between Tobii
More informationNOTICE OF ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE HONK KONG INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ADMINISTERED ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) NOTICE
More informationIntroduction to the Third Amendment of the Trademark Law of China. August 30, 2013
Introduction to the Third Amendment of the Trademark Law of China August 30, 2013 Background China started to work on the third amendment to its Trademark Law in 2003 (the second amendment was adopted
More informationDecision ADJUDICATOR DECISION ZA CASE NUMBER: ZA DECISION DATE: 23 September Nuttall, Paul DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANT:
Decision ZA2010-0048.ZA ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REGULATIONS (GG29405) ADJUDICATOR DECISION CASE NUMBER: ZA2010-0048 DECISION DATE: 23 September 2010 DOMAIN NAME etravelmag.co.za DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANT:
More informationIndia Inde Indien. Report Q191. in the name of the Indian Group by Tehemtan N. DARUWALLA and Manoj MENDA
India Inde Indien Report Q191 in the name of the Indian Group by Tehemtan N. DARUWALLA and Manoj MENDA Relationship between trademarks and geographical indications India did not have any specific law governing
More informationPATENT. Copyright Henry Goh & Co. Sdn. Bhd.
PATENT Please note that the information contained in this booklet is presented in good faith for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Kindly contact us should you have any specific
More informationEnforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies
Enforceability of IP Agreements and Enforcement Strategies MIP Asia-Pacific Forum 2011 Kherk Ying Chew, Kuala Lumpur Celeste Ang, Singapore Adolf Panggabean, Jakarta 29 September 2011 / Hong Kong Baker
More informationTHE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. CASE NO: CT018May2016. In the matter between: Kganya Brands (Proprietary) Limited and.
THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: CT018May2016 In the matter between: Kganya Brands (Proprietary) Limited and Kganya Investment Holdings (Proprietary) Limited Applicants and Kganya Ya Naledi
More informationSKRINE ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS. IS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND PAYMENT ADJUDICATION ACT 2012 RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE? Shannon Rajan Partner SKRINE
SKRINE ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS IS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND PAYMENT ADJUDICATION ACT 2012 RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE? Shannon Rajan Partner SKRINE Global Arbitration Review (GAR) Ranked in Top 100 International
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL The Government proposes to introduce shortly a New Intellectual Property Bill. This Bill seeks to bring the Sri Lankan Law in line with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.
More informationWorld Intellectual Property Organization
WIPO Special Update on WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution GRUR Annual Meeting Hamburg September 27-30, 2017 Erik Wilbers, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center World Intellectual Property Organization
More informationCHAPTER 315 TRADE MARKS ACT
CHAPTER 315 TRADE MARKS ACT Act Subsidiary Legislation ACT Act No. 46 of 2003 Amended by Act No. 50 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation.
More informationMEASAT GLOBAL BERHAD (Incorporated in Malaysia Company No.: 2866-T)
MEASAT GLOBAL BERHAD (Incorporated in Malaysia Company No.: 2866-T) NOTICE OF FIFTIETH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fiftieth Annual General Meeting of MEASAT Global Berhad will
More informationPART I PRELIMINARY MATTERS
MEDICAL DEVICE ACT 2012 (ACT 737) MEDICAL DEVICE REGULATIONS 2012 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS Regulation 1. Citation and commencement 2. Interpretation PART I PRELIMINARY MATTERS PART II CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT
More informationJUDGMENT (Court enclosure no. 4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA CIVIL SUIT NO: WA-22IP-37-09/2017 BETWEEN DARUL FIKIR (Business Registration No.: 000624088-H)
More informationTerms of Use for Forestry Commission Spatial Data
Terms of Use for Forestry Commission Spatial Data The Forestry Commission creates (or derives) and then publishes a range of information and data. These Terms of Use (ToU) set out how this information
More informationMALAYSIA IP HANDBOOK
MALAYSIA IP HANDBOOK Copyright Reserved IP Hall Group www.iphall.com TRADEMARK APPLICATION IN MALAYSIA 1. Legislation: Trade Marks Act 1976 (Act 175), Trade Marks Act (Regulation 1997), Trade Marks Act
More informationSection 4 amended by Trademark Act (No. 3) B.E. 2559
TRADEMARK ACT B.E. 2534 AMENDED BY TRADEMARK ACT (NO. 2) B.E. 2543 AND TRADEMARK ACT (NO. 3) B.E. 2559 H.M. KING BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ Given on the 28 th day of October B.E. 2534 being the 46th year of the
More informationFC5 (P7) Trade Mark Law Mark Scheme 2015
(P7) Trade Mark Law PART A Question 1 a) Article1(2) Community trade mark CTMR provides that a CTM is unitary in character. What does that mean? 3 marks b) Explain by means of an example how that unitary
More informationd) To introduce a new Part on Anti-Camcording to combat camcording activities in a place for the screening of any film or cinematography.
COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT MALAYSIA 1. Proposals for Changes in Copyright Law in Malaysia There have been proposals to amend the Copyright Act and comments have been given by stakeholders to the proposed
More informationAlexandria Center for International Arbitration Semi-dried dates case of 10 January 2005
Alexandria Center for International Arbitration Semi-dried dates case of 10 January 2005 I. The Parties (1) The Claimant, (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), is a company incorporated and existing
More informationTHE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions and interpretation. THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II THE REGISTER AND CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION
More information2018 ISDA Choice of Court and Governing Law Guide
2018 ISDA Choice of Court and Governing Law Guide International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Copyright 2018 by International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 10 E 53 rd Street 9th Floor
More informationREQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION BETWEEN: [NAME OF CLAIMANT] (CLAIMANT) -AND- [NAME OF RESPONDENT] (RESPONDENT) REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION
More informationON TRADEMARKS LAW ON TRADEMARKS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS
Republika e Kosovës Republika Kosovo - Republic of Kosovo Kuvendi - Skupština - Assembly Law No. 04/L-026 ON TRADEMARKS Assembly of Republic of Kosovo; Based on article 65 (1) of Constitution of the Republic
More informationTrademark Law of the People's Republic of China
Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China ( Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People 's Congress on August 23, 1982, as amended according to the "Decision
More informationCase 2:07-cv CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:07-cv-02334-CM-JPO Document 1 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS PAYLESS SHOESOURCE WORLDWIDE, INC. ) a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationGeographical Indications under TRIPS Agreement and Legal Framework in India : Part II
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 9, March 2004, pp 105-119 Geographical Indications under TRIPS Agreement and Legal Framework in India : Part II Suresh C Srivastava* Indian Law Institute, Bhagwandas
More information