Interim injunctions require serious questions for trial, and the balance of convenience must favor the plaintiff's interests.

The Application

[1] The plaintiff, Syarikat Ogen Led Sdn Bhd, has filed this application seeking the following injunctive reliefs against Balaguru A/L Muniandy (the 1st defendant) and Azzumas Technology Sdn Bhd (the 2nd defendant):

(a) An interim prohibitory injunctive order against the defendants (including the directors, agents, nominees, employees of the defendant and/or any relevant person associated) to prohibit/restrain them from performing any activities including attempts to sell, market, supply and/or storing products which have the tradename and logo of "Ogen Led";

(b) An interim prohibitory injuctive order against the first defendant to retract his company's profile at www.ogenworldwide.com which uses the tradename of "Ogen Led" as well as all the details including pictures and articles which have been altered;

(c) An interim prohibitory injunctive order against the defendants (including the directors, agents, nominees, employees of the defendant) in making any representation in whatsoever manner and form, to any third parties including its customers, that the second defendant has been appointed as master distributor to the plaintiff;

(d) An interim prohibitory injunctive order against the defendants to restrain them from approaching the plaintiff's client in whatsoever forms of communication, including letters, emel, telephone, short messaging with the intention of damaging the reputation and image of plaintiff's product and its directors;

(e) An injunctive order against the defendants to surrender all the confidential information including list of prices, customer's list and suppliers list of the Led products to the plaintiff forthwith.

(f) An interim prohibitory injunctive order against the defendants from utilising any confidential information belonging to the plaintiff in their marketing, sales and supply of the plaintiff's products.

(g) Costs of this application to be costs in the cause;

(h) Such further and other reliefs which this honourable Court deems fit and proper to give.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff's company was incorporated in 2016. It is in the business of supplying and servicing LED lights. It has a trademark registered under its name as "Ogen LED". It was a dormant company set up to maintain the tradename. Mr Muraly Muniandy and the 1st defendant were the only two directors and shareholders of the plaintiff and the latter held 51% of the shares in the plaintiff.

[3] In mid 2019, the plaintiff became involved in marketing of its products through DBMM Jaya Sdn Bhd and employed two fulltime staffs to oversee its business.

[4] DBMM Jaya Sdn Bhd was incorporated in 2014 and its directors were also Mr Muraly Muniandy, the 1st defendant, and one other person. The share composition of DBMM Jaya Sdn Bhd at that time was as follows:

Ishak bin Yeop Hamzah: 40,000 shares

Balaguru Muniandy: 460,000

shares Muraly Muniandy: 500,000

[5] Disagreements surfaced between Mr Muraly and the 1st defendant sometime towards the end of 2019. The 1st defendant by whatsapp messages to Mr Muraly called for a board meeting with the intention of ending all business relationships between them. A meeting was held on 23 December 2019. There is a serious dispute as to whether the meeting called for on that day was for the plaintiff or DBMM Jaya Sdn Bhd or both. The 1st defendant averred that day he had attended a meeting for DBMM Jaya Sdn Bhd, and denied calling for or attending any meeting of the plaintiff. Mr Muraly, on the other hand, has aver