GOODNESS FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT vs PHILLIP MORRIS BRANDS SARL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 1386

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
GOODNESS FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT – Appellant
Versus
PHILLIP MORRIS BRANDS SARL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. identification of parties and jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and appropriateness of the malaysian forum. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
3. court's decision on jurisdictional issues and affirmation of the malaysian court's authority. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 59)

Ahmad Maarop FCJ:

[1] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court. This judgment concerns the appeal by the 1st defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal made on 4 July 2013 reversing the decision of the High Court in favour of the 1st defendant.

[2] The background facts leading to the appeal before us are these. The plaintiff is a limited liability company with "seat" at Quai Jeanrenaud 3, 2000 Neuchatel, Switzerland. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor and/or common law owner and/or beneficial owner in Malaysia of the MARLBORO and MARLBORO Roof Lines trade marks (collectively referred to as the "MARLBORO marks") for tobacco, raw or manufactured; and other tobacco products, which is valid and subsisting at all material times. The plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the MARLBORO marks in relation to cigarettes.

[3] The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 1386

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAGOODNESS FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT – AppellantVersusPHILLIP MORRIS BRANDS SARL – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
GOODNESS FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT – Appellant
Versus
PHILLIP MORRIS BRANDS SARL – Respondent