TIEN YING HONG ENTERPRISE SDN BHD vs BEENION SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 MarsdenLR 2509

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TIEN YING HONG ENTERPRISE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BEENION SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Barry Goh Meng Yew ,Respondent Advocate: Ismail Mohamed Arifin

Table of Content
1. trademark infringement regarding seizaiken (Para 1 , 2)
2. plaintiff's rights in trademark distribution (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defendant's defense of parallel imports (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's analysis on parallel imports (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. consent in parallel imports (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. misapplication of the winthrop case ruling (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. final ruling on trademark infringement (Para 24)

Azahar Mohamed J:

[1] This action raises a point of law concerning parallel importation in international trade. It has to do with the legitimacy of parallel imports in the area of trademark protection.

[2] The plaintiff's cause of action in this suit is trademark infringement of the plaintiffs rights to the trademark "SEIZAIKEN" pursuant to Trademark Registration No: 91/01413 under the Trade Marks Act 1976 (the Act) in respect of batteries in class 9.

The Plaintiff's Case

[3] In brief, the plaintiff's case is as follows. The plaintiff has the business of distributing and selling batteries for watches and clocks as well as watches and clock parts. The plaintiff is and has been the registered proprietor of the trademark "SEIZAIKEN" pursuant to T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 MarsdenLR 2509

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURTIEN YING HONG ENTERPRISE SDN BHD – AppellantVersusBEENION SDN BHD – Respondent

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TIEN YING HONG ENTERPRISE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BEENION SDN BHD – Respondent