CARGILL INCORPORATED vs PENDAFTAR CAP DAGANGAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 2160

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CARGILL INCORPORATED – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR CAP DAGANGAN – Respondent

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's appeal against trademark refusal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background and objections to trademark application. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legal provisions for trademark registrability. (Para 7)
4. arguments supporting 'invented words' for trademark. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. defendant's contention on obvious meanings of trademark. (Para 11 , 12)
6. counterarguments assessing direct reference to goods (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. further examination of indirect reference to quality (Para 16)
8. trademark's lack of direct reference to goods. (Para 17 , 18)
9. registration supported by lack of similar trademarks. (Para 19 , 20)
10. defendant argues trademark is common and descriptive. (Para 21 , 22)
11. defendant's claims on common usage and descriptiveness (Para 23)
12. discussion on distinctiveness and previous case law (Para 24)

[1] This is the plaintiff's appeal pursuant to s 25(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1976 ("the Act") and O 87 of the Rules of 2012 against the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks ("the Registrar") dated 11 December 2012 wherein the Registrar had refused the plaintiff's trademark application no 02008431 to register the trade mark "POULTRY FOCUS" in Class 31 in res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 2160

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURCARGILL INCORPORATED – AppellantVersusPENDAFTAR CAP DAGANGAN – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CARGILL INCORPORATED – Appellant
Versus
PENDAFTAR CAP DAGANGAN – Respondent