Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Registration

  • 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.

  • KOPERASI NIAGA PEGAWAI-PEGAWAI LEMBAGA PERTUBUHAN PELADANG BHD LWN.

    Citation
    KOPERASI NIAGA PEGAWAI-PEGAWAI LEMBAGA PERTUBUHAN PELADANG BHD LWN.
    Court
    Malaysian court

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the lots in the sale plan corresponded to the registered titles and that the full purchase price was received on 21 January 1986; consequently Jaya Kencana became a bare trustee as of that date and lacked power to create the security. Therefore the lien-holder caveats lodged by Southern Finance (and now Southern Bank) were invalid and were ordered removed; plaintiff's reliefs were granted with costs.