Intellectual Property
62 cases · October 2017 to April 2026
Overview
Intellectual Property appears in 62 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).
In this practice area
Intellectual Property collects the disputes over trade marks, patents and related rights, together with the common-law action for passing off. The reasoning is anchored in the Trade Marks Act 1976 (and its successor), the Patents Act 1983, and the general law protecting goodwill and confidential information.
Trade-mark protection is a central subject. Judgments examine infringement and passing off under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1976, the use of a mark in a corporate name or web domain and the likelihood of deception or confusion, and parallel importation. The elements of passing off — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage — recur throughout, including whether the reposting of an offending mark on a social-media page amounts to use in the course of trade. Opposition to registration and appeals from the Registrar of Trade Marks also appear, together with trade-description orders under the trade-description legislation.
Patents form a distinct strand. The collection includes challenges to the validity of a patent for want of inventive step under section 56(2) of the Patents Act, questions of novelty and the inventive concept under sections 12 and 14, and infringement claims met by a counterclaim for invalidation. Breach of confidence, conspiracy to injure and unlawful interference with trade appear where the protection of commercial information and goodwill is in issue.
The cases sit mainly in the High Court, which exercises the intellectual-property jurisdiction, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on questions of principle. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts protect the marks, inventions and goodwill that underpin commercial reputation — restraining infringement and passing off — while testing the validity of the registered rights on which the claimants rely. The pairing of an infringement claim with a counterclaim to invalidate the right is a recurring pattern, so that the strength of the registered right is often litigated at the same time as its alleged breach.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Trade marks — Infringement — Registered mark — Use in the course of trade — Sale of goods bearing identical mark — Online marketplace (Lazada) — Whether resale of counterfeit goods amounts to infringement — Whether knowledge or intention required. 1 case
Trade marks — Infringement — Strict liability — Whether innocent infringement or lack of knowledge is a defence — Role of supplier — Whether liability of reseller displaced by upstream supplier. 1 case
Trade marks — Infringement — Passing off — Counterfeit pharmaceutical products — Registered proprietor — Defendant licensed pharmacist — Duty to ensure authenticity of goods — Absence of statutory defence under Trade Marks Act 2019 1 case
Trademarks — Infringement — Passing off — Well-known mark — “Arm & Axe” marks 1 case
Copyright — Infringement — Claim for damages — Assessment of — Whether there was foundation for claiming sums — Whether general and additional damages to be awarded — Whether damages to be awarded on the basis of license fee basis — Whether claims exorbitant — Whether additional damages payable by infringer for flagrancy of infringement and for benefits gained from infringement — What considerations may be taken into account — Whether damages to be reduced based on nature of infringer’s use of infringed software — Copyright Act 1987, s. 37(1)(b) & 37(7) — Rules of Court 2012, O.37 r.1. 1 case
Trademarks — Expungement application — Defendant operated a hotel known as “La Villa” in Langkawi since July 2013 — Plaintiff registered “La Villa” trademark in Malaysia in 2016 and first use it in February 2014 — Defendant seeking to expunge trademark registered by Plaintiff under the Trademarks Act 2019 — Whether the Defendant aggrieved by Plaintiff’s registered trademark — Whether Defendant the first user of the trademark — Whether Plaintiff committed tort of passing off — Whether Defendant’s use of unregistered trademark infringed Plaintiff’s registered mark — Trademarks Act 2019, s.16, s.23(5)(a), s.24(4), s.47(1), s.47(3)(b), s.48, s.52, s.53, s54 and s.55(2) — Evidence Act 1950, s.114(g) — Undang-Undang Kecil Perlesenan, Perniagaan Dan Perusahaan (Pihak-Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan) Negeri Kedah 1985. 1 case
Copyright — Artistic work — Packaging design — Infringement of copyright — Objective similarity of works and casual connection — Passing Off — Statutory Declaration as a prima facie evidence — Copyright Act 1987 — Commonplace elements — Adverse inference due to suppression of evidence — Independent creation rebutted — Claim partially allowed. Plaintiff’s product packaging was held to be an artistic work protected under the Copyright Act 1987. Court found substantial objective similarity and causal connection between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ boxes. Defendants’ failure to call key witnesses led to adverse inference. Copyright infringement and passing off proven. Certain generic elements excluded. Claim partially allowed. 1 case
Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
How many Intellectual Property cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
62 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Intellectual Property.
What rights does the Intellectual Property area cover?
It covers trade marks under the Trade Marks Act 1976, patents under the Patents Act 1983, and the common-law action for passing off, together with breach of confidence and related commercial torts.
How do the courts approach passing off?
The judgments apply the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage, and consider modern questions such as whether reposting an offending mark on a social-media page amounts to use in the course of trade. Trade-mark infringement under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1976 is frequently pleaded alongside passing off.
How are patents challenged?
The collection includes challenges to validity for want of inventive step under section 56(2) of the Patents Act, questions of novelty and the inventive concept under sections 12 and 14, and infringement claims met by a counterclaim seeking to invalidate the patent.