Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution
Subscribe to JLCR
Full Name*
Email Address*

Article Number - DAEBDB265459


Vol.9(2), pp. 9-25 , July 2017
DOI: 10.5897/JLCR2016.0247
ISSN: 2006-9804



Review

Trademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention



Sohaib Mukhtar
  • Sohaib Mukhtar
  • The National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Google Scholar
Zinatul Ashiqin
  • Zinatul Ashiqin
  • The National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Google Scholar
Sufian Bin Jusoh
  • Sufian Bin Jusoh
  • The National University of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.
  • Google Scholar







 Received: 08 September 2016  Accepted: 30 November 2016  Published: 31 July 2017

Copyright © 2017 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0


Trademark is a mark, name, sign, smell or a sound, which distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking, from goods and services of other undertakings. Malaysia had the trademark ordinance 1950; which is repealed by the trademark act 1976 and thereunder, the trademark regulations are made in 1997. The trademark dispute arises between the parties, at the time of the registration of the trademark and at later stages; when the infringement of the registered trademark is occurred. The aggrieved party may settle the trademark dispute in Malaysia, through the civil procedure, the administrative procedure and through the criminal procedure; to protect his right of trademark in Malaysia. The substantive law; dealing with the civil procedure of the trademark dispute settlement in Malaysia; includes the trademark act 1976 and the Specific Relief Act 1950 and the procedural laws include the Order 87 of the Rules of the Court 2012 and the Order 100 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. The substantive criminal law; for the settlement of the trademark dispute through the criminal procedure; in Malaysia; is the Trade Description Act 2011 and the procedural law is the code of criminal procedure 1935. The trade description act states that a false trade description includes the trademark infringement and the false trade indication is also an infringement which is a misleading statement in an advertisement for the purpose of trade. The administrative procedure runs under the trademark regulations 1997, the intellectual property corporation of Malaysia act 2002 and the relevant provisions of the trademark act 1976 and the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1967. The Paris convention contains provisions related to the border measures and the Agreement Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights TRIPS includes a comprehensive chapter on the enforcement of Intellectual Property (IP) rights in member states. This article compares the current trademark dispute settlement structure in Malaysia with the relevant provisions of the TRIPS and the Paris Convention.   

Key words: Intellectual Property (IP), trademark, intellectual property corporation of Malaysia (My IPO), trademark Act 1976, trademark regulations 1997, trade description Act 2011.

A K Koh Enterprise Sdn Bhd v A1 Best One Food Industry Sdn Bhd. (2015). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur 9:715.

 

Ho Tack Sien & Ors v Rotta Research Laboratorium SpA & Anor. (2015). Malaysian Law Journal, The Federal Court Putrajaya 4:166.

 

Lian Bee Confectionery Sdn Bhd. v QAF Ltd. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal, The Federal Court Putrajaya 04: 20.

 

Malaysia IPCO (2016). Trademark: General Information. Malaysia, Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia.

 

Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia. (2015). Malaysian Law Journal, The Federal Court Putrajaya 6:465.

 

Oriental & Motolite Marketing Corp v Syarikat Asia Bateri Sdn Bhd. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur. 5:87.

 

PELITA Samudra Pertama (M) Sdn Bhd v Venkatasamy a/l Sumathiri. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur. 6:114.

 

Plastech Industrial Systems Sdn Bhd v N & C Resources Sdn Bhd & Ors. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur 5:258.

 

Shaifubahrim bin Mohd v EM Exhibitions (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal The high court Kuala Lumpur. 09: 84.

 

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. (1994). World Trade Organization.

 

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. (1967). World Intellectual Property Organization.

 

Wieland Electric GMBH v Industrial Automation (M) Sdn Bhd. & Anor. (2014). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur 10:445.

 

Yong Sze Fun & Anor v Syarikat Zamani Hj Tamin Sdn Bhd & Anor. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal The Court of Appeal Putrajaya. 01: 585.

 

Yong Teng Hing v Walton International Ltd. (2012). Malaysian Law Journal, The High Court Kuala Lumpur. 10: 244.

 


APA Mukhtar, S., Ashiqin, Z., & Jusoh, S. B. (2017). Trademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 9(2), 9-25.
Chicago Sohaib Mukhtar, Zinatul Ashiqin and Sufian Bin Jusoh  . "Trademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention." Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution 9, no. 2 (2017): 9-25.
MLA Sohaib Mukhtar, Zinatul Ashiqin and Sufian Bin Jusoh  . "Trademark dispute settlement in Malaysia: A comparative analysis with the TRIPS and the Paris convention." Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution 9.2 (2017): 9-25.
   
DOI 10.5897/JLCR2016.0247
URL http://academicjournals.org/journal/JLCR/article-abstract/DAEBDB265459

Subscription Form