Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YONG SZE FUN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SYARIKAT ZAMANI HJ TAMIN SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties in the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of plaintiffs' claim and defendants' counter-claim. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. facts regarding the trademark 'tamin' usage and its history. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. court observations on the evidence and confusion. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 90) |
| 5. principles governing passing-off and trademark rights. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 140 , 152) |
| 6. conclusion on the plaintiffs' rights to the 'tamin' trademark. (Para 268 , 269 , 270) |
[2] After a full trial, the High Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' prayers in the Statement of Claim were allowed with costs with a consequential order that damages be assessed by the registrar. The High Court also dismissed the defendants' counter-claim with costs.
[3] Aggrieved, the defendants appealed to this Court. The defendants were the appellants and the plaintiffs were the respondents before us. But, for brevity, we reiterate that the parties will be referred to like what they were referred to at the High Court as the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively.
Statement of Claim
[4] At pp 215 to
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
