Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Infringement

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2025

Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG Wong Chee Seng

Citation

WA-24IP-39-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24IP-39-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff to be an aggrieved person and/or entitled as a registered proprietor; the defendant’s mark 'STHLL' is visually, aurally and conceptually similar to the plaintiff’s STIHL marks and applied to identical/similar goods in Class 7 such that there is a real likelihood of deception or confusion; accordingly the registration TM2022006381 was declared invalid and the Registrar ordered to revoke/remove/expunge it; costs RM8,000 awarded to plaintiff.
19 May 2023

RCB MARKETING SDN BHD MILANO MARKETING SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22IP-1-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22IP-1-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to amend the Defence was granted because there was no inordinate or inexcusable delay, the proposed amendments were relevant to the central disputes about competing trademark rights, they would not change the character of the suit, and any prejudice to the Plaintiff was compensable by costs; amendments allowed subject to specified costs and filing timelines.
30 Dec 2020

PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL KEDUA SDN. BHD. LEE LAP KEE

Citation

WA-22IP-10-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-10-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although plaintiffs met the preliminary requirements for an Order 14 application, the defendant's affidavit raised inherently probable disputes and denials sufficient to constitute bona fide triable issues under established Supreme Court authority; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed.
8 Jul 2020

1. Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd 2. Profina Teknik Sdn Bhd YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the patent was invalid for lack of novelty and, alternatively, for obviousness because the respondent's purported invention had been previously disclosed and used (prototype at Keck Seng, Kim Loong drawings and Desa Kim Loong machine and industry publications) prior to the priority date; the prototype was not shown to be confidential or subject to enforceable restrictions and therefore formed part of the prior art; the dependent claims likewise lacked novelty/ inventive step; consequently patent and copyright claims failed and the appellants' counterclaim (declarations of inval…

Malaysia Case Law

Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG Wong Chee Seng

RCB MARKETING SDN BHD MILANO MARKETING SDN BHD

PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL KEDUA SDN. BHD. LEE LAP KEE

1. Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd 2. Profina Teknik Sdn Bhd YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd