The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for trademark infringement and breach of fiduciary duty due to lack of evidence of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damages.

JUDGMENT

Alice Loke Yee Ching J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff sues the Defendants for damages arising from various causes of action, principally arising from the actions of the 2nd Defendant in establishing the 1st Defendant company, whose business was in competition with that of the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant then continued with a project known as the Huawei-P1 project which was initially awarded to and executed by the Plaintiff. The monies paid in respect of the project was received by the 1st and 2nd Defendant.

[2] The 3rd Defendant was not served with the cause papers. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he is not a party to this action. The 4th Defendant is a former employee of the Plaintiff who subsequently entered into the employment of the 1st Defendant. She was alleged to be equally responsible for the wrongful acts of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

The Plaintiff's Claim

[3] The Plaintiff was locally incorporated in 2005. It is a service provider for a comprehensive end to end IP Wireless full turnkey project management. Its services encompass all aspects of the drive testing programs for telecommunications. The Plaintiff was also a key technology partner to GABS Telecommunications Ltd which is an overseas company providing financial support to the Plaintiff.

[4] Since its incorporation, the Plaintiff had executed projects with leading telecommunication companies and service providers like Maxis, Advanced Air Traffic Systems (M) Sdn Bhd, Huawei, OCK Group of Companies and Celcom.

[5] The 2nd Defendant ("D2") was appointed the technical director of the Plaintiff on 1 December 2006 by Mr Rabih Daher (PW1), the Plaintiff's director.

[6] In 2009, the Plaintiff's paid up capital was increased to RM1,000,000.00. D2 was offered 15% equity in the Plaintiff's company. He was then appointed the executive director and the Chief Operations Officer of the Plaintiff. In addition to these benefits, the D2 was also entrusted with 55% of the Plaintiff's paid- up capital as its trustee. To safeguard the interest of the Plaintiff, a Trust Deed dated 27 July 2009 was executed between the parties. D2 had full access to the Plaintiff's bank accounts, human resources and tools of the trade, including systems and software specifically developed by the Plaintiff for its business.

[7] As PW1 was overseas most of the time, D2 was responsible for the operations of the Plaintiff. He oversaw the technical aspect and execution of the Plaintiff's services to ensure that it provided high quality services for the Plaintiff's customers.

[8] The 3rd named Defendant, Mohamed Nahu bin Abdullah ("Nahu") was the Vice-President for Business and Development.

[9] The 4th Defendant ("D4") commenced her employment with the Plaintiff in March 2016. She was the finance executive, tasked with managing the finances of the Plaintiff. She resigned from her employment with the Plaintiff on 4 July 2016.

[10] When the dispute between the parties arose in the middle of 2016, the Plaintiff was in the midst of executing a project titled, the Huawei-P1 Project, to conduct drive tests. This project was awarded by Steadcom Sdn Bhd ("Steadcom"), which in turn was the main vendor for Huawei Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd In other words, the Plaintiff was a subcontractor.

[11] Purchase Orders for the Huawei-P1 Project were issued by Steadcom to the Plaintiff to execute the project. Work done will be recorded in the Work Acceptance Report forms and timesheets for the approval of Huawei Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd for its approval. Upon the approval, the Plaintiff will make its claim for payment from Steadcom. By July 2016, work for the Huawei-P1 Project was near completion.

[12] At around the same, the Plaintiff was also interested to undertake another project known as the Huawei-Celcom Project, which had yet to be awarded to the Plaintiff. However, based on past dealings and contracts, the Plaintiff was confident of receiving Purchase Orders from Celcom for the project.

[13] PW1 received an unpleas