|
Introduction: To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=subscription Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=bulletinsubscribe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CASE(S) OF THE WEEK |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MESUMA SPORTS SDN BHD v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Rectification - Tiger stripes design for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45(1)(a), 46(1) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Passing off - Tiger stripes design for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45(1)(a), 46(1) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Design infringement - Tiger stripes for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45 (1)(a), 46(1) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LATEST CASES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Legal Network Series
CLJ 2015 Volume 9 (Part 2) COURT FEDERAL COURT Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia; Pendaftar Cap Dagangan Malaysia (Interested Party) Saiman Umar v. Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang COURT OF APPEAL Ediawe Eshilama Clinton v. PP Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor Pentadbir Tanah Kuala Selangor lwn. Maybank Islamic Bhd; Menteri Besar Selangor Diperbadankan (Pencelah Dicadangkan) & Rayuan-rayuan Lain PP v. Mohd Fazelan Md Khuzeh HIGH COURT Gary Lim Ting Howe v. Lim Pang Cheong & Ors Maria Yusof v. Abdullah Gendak Toyota Capital Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. PP & Another Case SUBJECT INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial review - Application for - Payments for services to non-resident company - Whether subject to withholding tax - Whether director general of inland revenue (DGI) correct in imposing withholding tax on respondents under ss. 109 and/or 109B of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether DGI acted unreasonably in failing to provide reasons for imposing withholding tax - Whether DGI failed to specify provisions applied in imposing withholding tax - Whether payments by respondents were royalty or for services rendered Rules of natural justice - Hearing by disciplinary committee - Employee dismissed from service - Whether employer complied with procedures in conduct of disciplinary proceedings - Whether employee given sufficient opportunity to be heard - Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Lembaga Pertubuhan Peladang (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1994, regs. 4(2)(c)(ii), (d), (f) & 28 BANKRUPTCY Capacity of bankrupt - Mental disorder - High Court declared bankrupt to be mentally disordered - Son and wife appointed as committee of bankrupt's person and estate - Application to set aside order of High Court - Bankrupt's son and wife adduced medical reports to support allegation that bankrupt was suffering from dementia - Surveillance reports showed that bankrupt was able to handle daily tasks - Whether bankrupt capable of managing himself and his affairs due to mental disorder - Mental Health Act 2001, ss. 62, 74 CIVIL PROCEDURE Affidavits - Failure to file - Land law - Application for removal of caveat - New affidavits to support affidavit in reply not filed in court registry - Filing and stamping fees not paid - Whether affidavits can be used and relied on - Whether valid - Whether impaired integrity of contents - Whether caused undue hardship or substantial prejudice to other party - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 41 r. 11, O. 44 r. 11 Affidavits - Jurat - Land law - Application for removal of caveat - Deponents deemed illiterate because affidavits not signed but were affixed with thumbprints - Affidavits did not contain requisite jurat to be used in cases involving illiterate deponents - Whether affidavits defective - Rules of Court 2012, O. 41 rr. 3, 8 Judgments and order - Setting aside - Application for - High Court declared bankrupt to be mentally disordered - Son and wife appointed as committee of bankrupt's person and estate - Application to set aside order of High Court - Bankrupt's son and wife adduced medical reports to support allegation that bankrupt was suffering from dementia - Surveillance reports showed that bankrupt was able to handle daily tasks - Whether bankrupt capable of managing himself and his affairs due to mental disorder - Whether court had jurisdiction to make consequential orders or to set aside any proper order - Mental Health Act 2001, ss. 62, 74 Pleadings - Departure from - Whether grounds of appeal entirely different from pleaded claim - Factual assertion responded by way of general traverse - Whether operated as denial - Whether rendered respondent's case to not have bearing on appellant's pleaded case - Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 18 r. 13 CRIMINAL LAW Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - 960.01g of methamphetamine recovered from car used by accused - Alternative charge under s. 12(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Accused pleaded guilty to alternative charge - Sentence of eight years and ten strokes of whipping imposed by trial judge despite weight of drugs - Gravity of offence - Whether sentence adequate Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking in 685.9g Methamphetamine - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Prima facie case - Whether established - Whether there were doubts as to identity of drug exhibits - Whether trial judge failed to judicially appreciate defence case - Whether defence of innocent carrier held any merit - Whether trial judge erred for failure to offer defence of passive possession - Failure to invoke presumption under s. 37(d) - Whether fatal - Whether conviction safe despite misdirection CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appeal - Appeal by prosecution - 960.01g of methamphetamine recovered from car used by accused - Alternative charge under s. 12(2) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Accused pleaded guilty to alternative charge - Sentence of eight years and ten strokes of whipping imposed by trial judge despite weight of drugs - Gravity of offence - Whether sentence adequate Appeal - Conviction and sentence - Dangerous drugs - Trafficking - Whether there were doubts as to identity of drug exhibits - Whether trial judge failed to judicially appreciate defence case - Whether defence of innocent carrier held any merit - Whether trial judge erred for failure to offer defence of passive possession - Failure to invoke presumption under s. 37(d) - Whether fatal - Whether conviction safe despite misdirection Forfeiture - Dangerous drugs - Forfeiture of property - Application for release of vehicle and monies allegedly associated with drug trafficking - Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 - Whether properties acquired through lawful means - Whether appellants lawfully entitled to properties - Presumption of illegal property under s. 35 of Act - Whether applicable to proceedings under s. 32 - Whether properties obtained through legitimate sources of income - Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, ss. 25, 32, 35 HIRE PURCHASE Forfeiture - Forfeiture of vehicle under hire - No criminal charge preferred against hirer or guarantor - Application for release of seized vehicle by financier and guarantor - Whether vehicle an illegal property - Whether guarantor had locus standi to institute claim - Whether vehicle to be released to financier/owner - Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, ss. 25, 32, 35 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Design infringement - Tiger stripes for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45 (1)(a), 46(1) Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Passing off - Tiger stripes design for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45(1)(a), 46(1) Trade marks - Registered trade mark - Rectification - Tiger stripes design for sports attire - Common law ownership right - Whether first user of trade mark owns trade mark - Whether defendant first used tiger stripes design as supplier upon orders from plaintiff - Whether defendant merely a contract manufacturer who affixes tiger stripes design made to plaintiff's order - Whether defendant could claim proprietorship of tiger stripes design - Whether plaintiff used tiger stripes design 'in the course of trade' - Whether plaintiff acquired goodwill and reputation of trade mark - Whether defendant's registration of tiger stripes design as trade mark wrongfully made without sufficient cause - Trade Marks Act 1976, ss. 3, 25(1), 45(1)(a), 46(1) LAND LAW Caveats - Removal - Application for - Defendant cultivated palm oil field on part of plaintiff's land - Defendant entered private caveat - Application by plaintiff for removal of caveat - Whether defendant had caveatable interest over land - Whether entry of private caveat justified - National Land Code, s. 327 WORDS & PHRASES 'any proceeding' - Section 32(2) Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 - Meaning and purport INDEKS PERKARA PROSEDUR SIVIL Pihak-pihak - Pencelah - Permohonan untuk kebenaran mencelah dalam rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan - Budi bicara mahkamah - Kepentingan berbangkit semasa prosiding masih di Mahkamah Tinggi - Peluang terawal untuk mencelah berbangkit di Mahkamah Tinggi - Kegagalan mencelah pada peluang terawal tanpa alasan kukuh - Sama ada kepentingan pencelah terlindung Rayuan - Penghakiman akhir - Bidang kuasa Mahkamah Rayuan untuk hanya mendengar rayuan daripada penghakiman akhir - Maksud dan ciri-ciri keputusan akhir - Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi mengenai pengezonan tanah sebelum penentuan amaun pampasan bagi pengambilan tanah - Sama ada satu penghakiman akhir atau hanya satu 'ruling' - Sama ada rayuan terhadap keputusan pra-matang Rayuan - Rekod rayuan - Kelewatan memfailkan memorandum rayuan dan rekod rayuan - Budi bicara mahkamah untuk membenarkan lanjutan tempoh pemfailan rekod rayuan - Alasan bahawa rekod rayuan yang perlu disediakan banyak dan perayu terkhilaf dalam perkiraan masa untuk pemfailan - Sama ada penjelasan yang munasabah - Sama ada lanjutan masa patut dibenarkan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LNS Article(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Principal Acts
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert Updated
Revoked
|
