PC Kok & Co.

On the court record

The firm's record is notable for its concentration on trademark-opposition litigation under the Trade Marks Act 1976, an unusual specialism, complemented by corporate-governance disputes under the Companies Act 2016.

PC Kok & Co. appears in the corpus as counsel with a marked specialism in intellectual property, particularly trademark opposition, alongside company-law work, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan).

Several of the firm's matters concern trademark disputes under the Trade Marks Act 1976. Acting for the plaintiff in an opposition involving Ferrari S.p.A, the firm appeared where a trademark proprietor had opposed a defendant's application, the opposition had been dismissed by the Registrar, and the court considered whether the defendant's mark was likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 14(1)(a), and whether a disclaimed word should be taken into account in assessing that likelihood. In a related matter for the plaintiff involving Monster Energy Company, the court examined whether the non-filing of a statutory declaration was fatal, whether the marks and the goods were similar or of the same description, and the distinctiveness of the mark, engaging sections 10, 14, 28 and 74. The firm also acted for the respondent in an appeal concerning first use of a mark in Malaysia and whether use by a related or associated company conferred a right to register.

In company law the firm acted for the defendant in a dispute over corporate governance, where the court examined the removal of directors under sections 206 and 322 of the Companies Act 2016, whether special notice of twenty-eight days was required, whether mere notification to the Companies Commission sufficed, the appointment of a company secretary under section 236, the oppression remedy under section 346 and the rectification of the register under section 602. The firm's record is a distinctive intellectual-property practice, unusual among general firms for its concentration on trademark opposition, complemented by shareholder and governance litigation. The appearance of internationally recognised brand owners among the firm's matters, and the recurring questions of likelihood of confusion, distinctiveness and prior use, mark it as counsel accustomed to the specialised statutory framework of the Trade Marks Act 1976 and to the appellate review of the Registrar's decisions on opposition, a field few general-practice firms regularly occupy.