Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
EZA CARPET DISTRIBUTOR SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TROCELLEN SEA SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of infringement and invalidation issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. definition and distinction of utility innovation (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. requirements for claiming novelty of a utility innovation (Para 14 , 16 , 30) |
| 4. defendant's failure to prove invalidity claims (Para 35 , 39) |
| 5. dismissal of both infringement and counterclaim (Para 61 , 93 , 94) |
Overview
[1] The Plaintiffs action against the Defendant is for infringement of its utility innovation ("III"), namely Utility Innovation No: MY-152248-A ("Ul 248"). The Plaintiff alleges that the carpet underlay with the trademark "TROCELLEN" and/or also known as "Trocellen Carpet Underlay" (collectively, "Defendant's Products") that the Defendant uses, manufactures, imports, supplies, distributes, sells and/or offers for sale and/or deals with in the market infringes Ul 248.
[2] Apart from contending that it is not infringing Ul 248, the Defendant further contends that the Plaintiffs action for infringement is time-barred, and further counterclaims to invalidate Ul 248 on the grounds that:
(i) it is not novel or new; and
(ii) the description and the claim(s) do not comply with the requirements of the
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
