IPR Hub |Contact Us | Useful Links | Glossary | Site Map | Legal Notice | Privacy Notice

Manage your Intellectual Property in South-East Asia

Case Studies

Case Study 1 - Bad faith of franchisee imitating franchisor's trade mark in Thailand

Background:

A foreign company (“Foreign Company”) had registered its trade mark in its head-quarter country but had not done so in Thailand. It entered into a franchise agreement with a Thai company (“Thai Company”), permitting the Thai Company to “use” its trade mark in Thailand. During the contract term, the Thai Company sneakily filed and registered copycat marks in Thailand, imitating the Foreign Company’s trade mark. As soon as the registration was approved, the Thai Company terminated the franchise agreement to pursue its own business exploiting the newly registered trade marks.

Case Study 26 - High court decision on patented rights in Malaysia

Background:

A foreign Pharmaceutical company (“Foreign Company”) owned a Malaysian Patent covering a pharmaceutical product of alendronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt (alendronate) to inhibit bone resorption in humans. Whereas, a Malaysian company (“Malaysian company”) was granted approval by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau to market "Alendronate" 70 mg tablets.

Case Study 25 - Enforcing IPR against Parallel Importation into Singapore

Background:

Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl (“Samsonite”) granted its Chinese subsidiary a license to use the SAMSONITE marks in China. Through a co-branding agreement with Lenovo PC HK Ltd (“Lenovo”), it was mutually decided that Samsonite would supply specific models of SAMSONITE backpacks to Lenovo. These backpacks were to bear at least one of the SAMSONITE marks as well as the LENOVO mark. Lenovo would then give away the backpacks in conjunction with the sale of certain models of LENOVO laptops, exclusively within China.

Case Study 24 - Trade mark owner and Exclusive distributor jointly enforcing their rights in Cambodia

Background:

The European company (“Company A”) duly registered its trade mark in relation to cosmetic products in Cambodia. Subsequently, it granted exclusive distribution rights of the cosmetics bearing its registered trade mark (the “branded cosmetics”) to a local distributor in Cambodia (“Company B”), who has filed and recorded its exclusive distribution right with the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) according to Cambodian regulations. Recently, Company B has discovered that a third party (“Company C”) practiced parallel import of the branded cosmetics into the Cambodian market.

Case Study 23 - Trade mark bad-faith registration in Indonesia

Background:

A famous fashion designer was planning to promote its brand in Indonesia. However, after carrying out a trade mark search, it discovered that a third party had registered that trade mark in Indonesia. As trade marks in South-East Asia follow the ‘first-to-file’ principle, the fashion designer cannot register the mark in Indonesia anymore even though it owns the mark in several other countries.

Case Study 22 - Potential patent invalidation under the new Patent Law in Indonesia

Background:

A chemical manufacturer was unsure about the provisions on potential patent invalidation of the new Patent Law of Indonesia, which sets a new potential ground for patent invalidation and came into effect in August 2016. Based on the new Patent Law, any patent might be vulnerable to invalidation if the patent holder does not produce the products or use the process within Indonesia. Given that the law is quite recent, it remains uncertain how the provision will be interpreted in court. 

Case Study 20 - Copyright enforcement actions against illegal downloading in Singapore

Background:

Two Hollywood studios, “Voltage Pictures” and “QOTD Film Investment”, are the right owners of the two movies “Father & Daughters” and “Queen of the Desert”. They have been subject to serious copyright infringement carried out by illegal downloaders in Singapore for quite some time.

Case Study 18 - Appealing against a descriptiveness refusal in trade mark filling in Thailand

Background:

“Company A” in Thailand submitted a trade mark application to the Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) to register the mark “TMB Make THE Difference” for banking services in Class 36. After examining the application, the DIP accepted to protect the mark, but with the phrase "Make THE Difference" disclaimed for being descriptive. The company was reluctant to disclaim their right over the phrase "Make THE Difference" as they considered it an important slogan in the company’s branding strategy.