SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 2088

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AB – Appellant
Versus
PRABAS VCARE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVITED LIMITED – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24IP-15-07/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Su Siew Ling,Amos Khaw Aik Ween ,Respondent Advocate: Foong Cheng Leong,Hee Pau Ling

A trade mark can be expunged for non-use; a party aggrieved must demonstrate genuine intent to use the mark in the relevant market.

Headnote:(1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1976, the court analyzed the application to expunge the defendant's registered trade mark for non-use, citing relevant provisions and case law to determine the aggrieved party status of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being a part of the Essity Group, provided evidence of intention to use the mark in Malaysia. (2) The core issues revolved around whether the defendant had genuinely used the impugned mark in Malaysia and the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims regarding non-use. The court's decisive reasoning affirmed that the non-use claims were substantiated, shifting the burden to the defendant. (3) The court concluded that the defendant's mark should be expunged from the register based on sufficient evidence of non-use presented by the plaintiff.

Table of Content
1. the entities involved and the nature of the trade mark application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments highlighting the plaintiff's position as 'person aggrieved'. (Para 8 , 12)
3. plaintiff claims aggrieved status based on intention to use. (Para 13)
4. discussion of procedural objections and legal standards. (Para 14 , 17)
Introduction

[1] This is another application to expunge a trade mark for non-use that came before me after the case of Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Orient Co Ltd and Hao Pin Wei Biotech Food Co Ltd v. Hai Pa Wang International Group Corp .

[2] The Plaintiff is an incorporated company under laws of Sweden and part of the Essity Group which includes Vinda Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("VM") which is a subsidiary of Vinda International Holdings Ltd which is in turn a subsidiary of the Plaintiff.

[3] VM is a licensed manufacturer, importer and distributor of the products offered by the Essity Group which amongst others includes incontinence care products such as adult under pads and diapers, consumer tissues, etc.

[4] The Plaintiff has applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks constituted pursuant to the Trade Marks Act 1976 (" TMA ") to register the following trademark ("Mark") in Class 3 in respect of skin care products and Class 5 in respect of sanitary products:

[5] The Defendant (which should correctly be spelt as Praba's VCare Health Clinic Private Limited) is a company incorporated under the laws of India and part of the VCare Group founded by Mrs Carolin Praba which includes VCare Pharcos Ptd Ltd ("VP") and v. Care Herbal Concepts (M) Sdn Bhd ("VH"). The Defendant is involved in the business of treating and dealing with equipment for the treatment of hair and skin related products.

[6] The mis-spelt Defendant is the registered proprietor of the following trade mark ("Impugned mark") in Class 3 in respect of skin products and Class 5 in relation to medical services products:

[7] The Plaintiff has brought this application by way of originating summons dated 24 July 2018 ("Application") praying for the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the registered trade mark under Trade Mark NO 2012060381 for in Class 3 by the Defendant (the "Defendant's Registered Mark") in relation to the goods, "Skin cleaners (cosmetic); skin toners; facial washes (cosmetic); moisturising skim creams (cosmetic); exfoliants for the cleansing of the skin; facial scrubs (cosmetic); body soaps; body shampoos; shower gel; sun screens; sun blocks; massage creams, not medicated; moisturising gels (cosmetic); serum (cosmetic preparations); anti cellulite reparations; non-medicated preparations for use on the hands; cocoa butter in the form of creams and lotions; non-medicated massage preparations; deodorant preparations for personal use; perfumes; body talcum powder; non-medicated talcum powder; make up preparations, hair oils, non-medicated hair care products; shampoos, hair cleaning preparations; hair treatment preparations; hair styling preparations; hair condition preparations; hair coloring preparations, spa preparations; non-medicated baby care products; baby bath preparations (non-medicated); all included in class 3" (the "Defendant's Goods")

(i) was registered without any intention in good faith, on the part of the Defendant, to use the Defendant's Registered Mark in relation to all of the Defendant's Goods and that there has been in fact no use in good faith of the Defendant's Registered Mark by the Defendant in relation to all of the Defendant's Goods for the time being up to the date of one month before the date of the Origination Summons herein; or

(ii) that up to 1 month before the date of the Origination Summons herein, a continuous period of not less than 3 years had elapsed during which there has been no use in good faith of the Defendant's Registered Mark in relation to all of the Defendant's Goods by the Defendant; or

(iii) was registered without any intention in good faith, on the part of the Defendant to use

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top