13 Mar 2025
1. ) CHONG TECK CHOY 2. ) MS-PRINT INDUSTRY SDN BHD BINA-SAFEE SDN BHD
- Citation
- WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Court
- High Court
- Case number
- WA-22IP-34-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
P1 failed to prove the eye-appeal requirement because no evidence from real customers of the finished warning tape was adduced; independent evidence established prior public disclosure of substantially similar warning tapes predating the filing date (including samples from Agroplus and Electroplast Holland), and the alleged distinguishing feature (gap between squares) was immaterial; accordingly RID0342 is not new and is not registrable under the Industrial Design Act 1996, warranting rectification under section 24 and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.