Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main points and insights:
Relevance of Philip Morris Brands Sarl v. Goodness for Import and Export & Ors (2018) 7 MLJ 350: This case is frequently cited in Malaysian jurisprudence concerning jurisdiction, service out of jurisdiction, and procedural aspects of trademark and commercial disputes. It established that the Federal Court confirmed the High Court's jurisdiction over non-resident defendants under O 11 of the Rules of Court and section 23 of the Civil Justice Act (CJA) ["
ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD & ANOR vs OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD & ANOR) - High Court
"], ["COUNTRY HEIGHTS HOLDINGS BHD vs MONALIZA ZAIDEL & ORS - 2021 MarsdenLR 1484
"], ["Alupanorama Metals Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Okaya International (HK) Ltd & Anor
"].Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens: The case reaffirmed that Malaysia is an appropriate forum for disputes involving Malaysian residents or where the defendant has sufficient nexus, and clarified that service procedures under O 11 RHC are procedural and do not deprive Malaysian courts of jurisdiction when applicable laws are followed ["
ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD & ANOR vs OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD & ANOR) - High Court
"], ["COUNTRY HEIGHTS HOLDINGS BHD vs MONALIZA ZAIDEL & ORS - 2021 MarsdenLR 1484
"], ["Alupanorama Metals Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Okaya International (HK) Ltd & Anor
"].Application to Trademark and Commercial Litigation: The case involved issues of trademark ownership, assignment, and abuse of process, with references to the registration and transfer of trademarks in favor of Philip Morris Brands Sarl. It also addressed procedural matters such as the amendment of parties and the filing of interlocutory applications during ongoing litigation ["
MOHAMMAD FAISOL AHMAD TAJUDDIN & ANOR vs MALIK STREAMS CORPORATION SDN BHD - High Court
"], ["K SENG SENG CORPORATION BERHAD vs TAN LIAN CHOON - 2025 MarsdenLR 746
"], ["K SENG SENG CORPORATION BERHAD vs TAN LIAN CHOON - 2025 MarsdenLR 3565
"].Legal Principles Confirmed: The decision confirmed that courts must consider whether Malaysia is the proper forum and that procedural rules like O 11 RHC facilitate, rather than restrict, jurisdiction over foreign defendants, provided the legal requirements are met ["
ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD & ANOR vs OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD & ANOR) - High Court
"], ["COUNTRY HEIGHTS HOLDINGS BHD vs MONALIZA ZAIDEL & ORS - 2021 MarsdenLR 1484
"], ["Alupanorama Metals Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Okaya International (HK) Ltd & Anor
"].Analysis and conclusion:
The case of Philip Morris Brands Sarl v. Goodness for Import and Export & Ors (2018) is a pivotal authority in Malaysian law on jurisdiction, service procedures, and the handling of international commercial disputes involving trademarks. It has been cited extensively to support the proposition that Malaysian courts have jurisdiction over foreign entities when the legal criteria are satisfied, and that procedural rules serve to facilitate, not hinder, access to justice ["
ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD & ANOR vs OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD & ANOR) - High Court
"], ["COUNTRY HEIGHTS HOLDINGS BHD vs MONALIZA ZAIDEL & ORS - 2021 MarsdenLR 1484
"].The case also underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the court's discretion in determining the appropriate forum, especially in complex international cases involving intellectual property rights and corporate assignments ["
MOHAMMAD FAISOL AHMAD TAJUDDIN & ANOR vs MALIK STREAMS CORPORATION SDN BHD - High Court
"], ["K SENG SENG CORPORATION BERHAD vs TAN LIAN CHOON - 2025 MarsdenLR 746
"].Overall, Philip Morris (2018) remains a key reference for cases concerning jurisdiction, service out of jurisdiction, and abuse of process in Malaysian civil and commercial litigation, especially where foreign corporate entities are involved ["
K SENG SENG CORPORATION BERHAD vs TAN LIAN CHOON - 2025 MarsdenLR 3565
"], ["Alupanorama Metals Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Okaya International (HK) Ltd & Anor
"].
In the dynamic field of intellectual property law, particularly trademarks, certain landmark decisions shape how courts interpret critical concepts like , jurisdiction over non-residents, and the scope of . One such influential case is Philip Morris Brands Sarl v Goodness for Import and Export & Ors 7 MLJ 350. If you're searching for a series of cases that referred to Philip Morris Brands Sarl v Goodness for Import and Export & Ors 7 MLJ 350, this post breaks down the referencing decisions, their contexts, and broader implications.
This Malaysian ruling has become a cornerstone for trade-related disputes, especially involving , , and infringement claims. We'll examine how subsequent cases have invoked it, drawing from judicial documents, while integrating global context from Philip Morris's international trademark battles. Note: This is general information based on available sources and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The Philip Morris case addressed claims against defendants handling goods in transit through Malaysian ports and . The clarified jurisdictional reach and the broad definition of commercial use, rejecting arguments that mere transit exempts parties from liability. Its principles have rippled through later judgments, cited for:
These holdings make it a go-to authority in Malaysian IP jurisprudence.
Courts frequently cite Philip Morris to define narrowly. It holds that there can only be an if the case advanced is so unsustainable that it is liable to be struck out.
For instance:- In one decision, this standard was applied to dismiss applications in infringement suits, emphasizing that mere weakness in a claim doesn't constitute abuse.
- Another reinforced it, noting courts should not strike out unless the claim is plainly unsustainable.
This principle protects legitimate IP actions while curbing frivolous challenges.
Philip Morris confirmed jurisdiction under multiple provisions when goods are in Malaysia, even in transit or .
The case expansively interprets trade use: is a wide concept, covering steps necessary for production up to sale, even without actual sale.
References appear across documents in a logical progression:1. Early mentions focus on abuse thresholds.
2. Jurisdictional affirmations follow, linking to non-resident issues.
3. Trade scope discussions build on transit scenarios.
4. Reiterated for abuse in later filings.
At least four explicit citations underscore its authoritative status in trade, jurisdiction, and process abuse.
While Philip Morris v Goodness is Malaysian-centric, Philip Morris Brands Sarl features prominently in international disputes, providing context for its aggressive IP enforcement.
In , multiple cases note amendments substituting Philip Morris Products S.A. with Philip Morris Brands Sarl as trademark proprietor:- Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks.
-500_) -1723_)
- Power of attorney filings confirm its role: The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma... was also placed on record. 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 774 2014 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 1217 2014 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 1218
These involve MARLBORO and ROOF Device infringements under , where courts decreed injunctions against . 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 774 One ruling emphasized: The main legal point... is that the defendants' actions constituted infringement... under Section 29(1) read with Section 29(6). 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 774
and were scrutinized, mirroring Malaysian trade use debates. 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 772 In ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA, counterclaims highlighted competitive tensions. 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 4
Though not direct citations of the Malaysian case, these reflect Philip Morris Brands Sarl's consistent strategy against unauthorized distribution, aligning with Goodness principles on trade scope and jurisdiction.
Philip Morris isn't absolute—courts apply it contextually:- Abuse claims succeed only on high unsustainability proof.- Jurisdiction hinges on territorial presence of goods.- Trade use excludes purely personal or non-commercial acts.
Legal practitioners may cite it in:- Free zone/ disputes.- oppositions.- Non-resident service challenges.
Stay informed on evolving IP law—trends like controls are tightening. For tailored advice, engage Malaysian or relevant jurisdiction experts.
References (based on provided documents):1.
,
– Abuse standards.2.
– Jurisdiction.3.
– Trade use.4. Indian cases:
, etc., for Philip Morris context. #TrademarkLaw, #MalaysianIP, #PhilipMorrisCase
[23] In Philip Morris Brands Sarl v. Goodness for Import and Export & Ors, [2018] 7 MLJ 350 , the 1st defendant owned 12 containers of goods which were to be shipped to Egypt. ... [26] I agree with the views expressed by Wong Kian Kheong JC (now JCA) in the Philip Morris case. ... It predominantly deals with the import-#HL_S....
Goodness for Import and Export & Ors; [2018] 7 MLJ 350; [2017] 10 CLJ 337; [2017] 5 AMR 157 ("Philip Moris") to contend that there can only be an abuse of process if the case advanced is so unsustainable that it is liable to be struck out under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of ... [24] The Plaintiff relied on the case of Philip Morris Brands Sarl v. ... Aloyah Abd ....
[24] The Plaintiff relied on the case of Philip Morris Brands Sarl v. Goodness for Import and Export & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 350 ; [2017] 10 CLJ 337 ; [1996] 2 MLRH 631; [1996] 3 MLJ 259; [1996] 3 CLJ 695; [1996] 3 AMR 3000: "Men go to law to redress a grievance. ... , and ought not to shrink from that task, though it ought, of course, to give#HL_....
Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 13. ... The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, was also placed on record. ... (hereinafter referred t....
Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 13. ... The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, was also placed on record. ... (hereinafter referred t....
Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 14. ... The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs was also placed on record. ... Morris Brands#....
Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 14. ... The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs was also placed on record. ... Morris Brands#....
The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, was also placed on record. ... Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. ... 13. ... In this context, the counsel has referr....
The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, was also placed on record. ... Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 13. ... During the pendency of the judgment, plaintiffs filed ....
The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. J.K. Sharma, the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs was also placed on record. ... Therefore, the memo of parties was amended to change the name of plaintiff no.1 from Philip Morris Products S.A. to Philip Morris Brands sarl- the current proprietor of the suit trademarks. 14. ... During the pendency of the judgment, plaintiffs filed I....
Philip Morris Products SA and Ors, ILR (2010) 2 DELHI 455 and Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Manoj Dodia and Ors., 2011 SCC Online Del 1520. Reliance is placed on judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ITC Limited vs.
The power of attorney executed by Philip Morris Brands Sarl in favour of Col. During the pendency of the judgment, plaintiffs filed I.A. no. 2384/2014 under order 22 rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C., 1908 to bring on record the assignment of the suit trademarks during the pendency of the suit, in favour of the assignee Philip Morris Brands Sarl, a company duly organised and existing under the laws of Switzerland having its registered office at Sarl, Switzerland. After perusing the documents on record, which are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs....
(iv) 2011 (46) PTC 152 (Delhi) (Kamdhenu Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Pickles & Spices India Pvt. Ltd. and another) (ii) 2010 (44) PTC 25(Bombay) (Raymond Limited v. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.,) (iii) 2010 (42) PTC 572 (Delhi) (ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products Sa and others) (v) 2010 (42) PTC 514 (Nestle India Limited v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.)
It states that from recent media reports, it became aware that the second defendant (hereafter referred to as “Philip Morris”) is a member of the “Philip Morris Group of Companies”. The third defendant is licensed to use the said registered mark “Marlboro” to market cigarettes by the second defendant. 5. ITC states that the third defendant is a company existing under Indian laws, doing business in tobacco, FMCG, cosmetics, retail business etc. The first defendant, Philip Morris Products SA, ownsthe trademark “Marlboro”; the defendantsare hereafter collectively ref....
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
