a
(a) the defendant only sells "OEM" (Original Equipment Manufacturer) pumps; and
Loading…
/akn/my/judgment/court-of-appeal/2018/8c58f269-90c6-44d7-903e-287b0c4519a3
Court of Appeal of Malaysia10 Jul 2018W-02(IPCv)(W)2444-12/2017
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“was further argued that the plaintiff failed to adduce the Distribution Agreement to prove rights and registered user of WARMAN. Thus, it was submitted that a presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn on the basis that the plaintiff did not adduce the so called Distributorship Agreement”
“RUM DR. HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER, JCA ABANG ISKANDAR ABANG HASHIM, JCA YAACOB HAJI MD SAM, JCA GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Preliminary This judgment is prepared pursuant to section 42(1) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972), as my learned brother, YA Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA was indisposed. My learned broth”
“(5) is WARMAL mark a well-known trade mark for the purpose of the enforcement of s. 70B(1) Trade Mark Act? [18] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge was satisfied on the evidence led by the plaintiff. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim of passing off and interference with tr”
“ean JA explained that goodwill, unlike reputation, does not exist on its own but must be attached to a business. [44] In the case of The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller & Co's Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217, at 223-224, Lord MacNaghten in the House of Lords has described goodwill as an "attractive force which bri”
“at 39 and Excelsior Pte Ltd v Excelsior Sport (S) Pte Ltd [1986] 1 MLJ 130 at 131 (which was cited by Siti Norma Yaakob J in Revertex Ltd & Anor v Slim Rivertex Sdn Bhd (supra); Solavoid Trade Mark [1977] RPC 1, at 30; Reckitt & Colman Products (supra). [47] We are satisfied that the trial judge had applied a correct t”
“ient sales and promotional evidences. [34] It was further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff had failed To fulfil the element of goodwill in Reckit Colemen Product Ltd v Borden Inc. & Ors [1990] RPC 341, that is the "Trinity test": (i) reputation; (ii) misrepresentation; and (iii) damage. The Plaintiff's Sub”
“gapore Yellow Pages". The court may consider goodwill of business which crosses national boundaries - please see Portculls Trustnet (Singapore) Pte Ltd v George Pathmanathan a/l Micheal Gandhi Nathan [2017] MLJU 223, at paragraph 124.”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Text
DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN) RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-02(IPCv)(W)2444-12/2017 ANTARA PUMP MATRIX ENGINEERING SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1030982-M) ... PERAYU DAN WARMAL WIL HEAVY DUTY PUMPS SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 161203 - D) ... RESPONDEN [Dalam Perkara Mengenai Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur Dalam Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia Guaman No: WA-22|P-24-05/2016] Antara Warmal Wil Heavy Duty Pumps Sdn BHd (No. Syarikat: 161203-D) Dan ... Plaintiff Pump Matrix Engineering Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 1030982-M) ... Defendan] KORUM DR. HAMID SULTAN ABU BACKER, JCA ABANG ISKANDAR ABANG HASHIM, JCA YAACOB HAJI MD SAM, JCA GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Preliminary This judgment is prepared pursuant to section 42(1) of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972), as my learned brother, YA Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, JCA was indisposed. My learned brother, YAA Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim, JCA (now the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak) has read this judgment in draft and has expressed his agreement that this judgment be the judgment of the court. INTRODUCTON [1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner (as he then was 'the learned JC') after full trial granting the Respondent's claim against the Appellant for passing off and unlawful interference with trade. [2] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the proceedings before the High Court. [3] Having heard the submission of the parties, we have deferred our decision to a date to be fixed. We now give our decision. SALIENT BACKGROUND FACTS [4] The plaintiff was incorporated on 30.04.1987 and is in the business of trading in all kinds of pumps including slurry pumps and centrifugal pumps in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei with the "WARMAL' mark (WARMAL Pumps). The plaintiff actively promotes its business, products and services by reference to the WARMAL name and WARMAL Trade Mark. The plaintiff has filed two trade mark applications for the WARMAL Trade Mark for goods in Class 7 (pumps, accessories and spare parts for pumps) and for services Class 37 (installation, assembly, repair, cleaning, servicing, replacement and maintenance of spare parts for pumps). [5] By reason of its long use, extensive sales and promotional activities relating the WARMAL name and WARMAL Trade Mark, the plaintiff has acquired substantial reputation and goodwill in the WARMAL name and Warmal Trade Mark. Hence, the plaintiff is the common law proprietor of the WARMAL name and WARMAL Trade Mark used in relation to plaintiff's business, products and services. [6] The plaintiff has been appointed by Warman International Ltd. (Warman) to be its exclusive manufacturing licensee and sole agent for "WARMAN Pumps" in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Warman subsequently changed its name to Weir Minerals Australia Ltd. (Weir). [7] The defendant was incorporated on 10.01.2013 and is in the business of trading in all kinds of centrifugal pumps and engineering goods. [8] The plaintiff claims that the defendant has manufactured and/or distributed and/or sold/or offered for sale heavy duty slurry pumps bearing the mark "WALMAR" which appear to be unauthorized reproductions of the slurry pumps bearing the mark "WARMAN" which was sold by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's "WALMAR" is almost identical or so nearly resembles the WARMAL Trade Mark and is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the trade and public to believe that WARMAR Pumps are WARMAL Pumps (sold by plaintiff) and the defendant is associated with the plaintiff. [9] It is an agreed fact that the defendant has been using the mark "WALMAR" on its website at http://pumpmatrix.com to promote its business and products. [10] The defendant has also on 15.05.2013 (about 4 months after its incorporation) filed a trade marks application for the mark "WALMAR" in Class 7 (centrifugal metal line, rubber line slurry pumps and spare parts) under trade mark application number 2013006803. [11] The plaintiff found about the defendant's trade mark application when the Registrar of MyIPO objected to the defendant's application on the basis that the WALMAR trade mark is confusingly similar to the WARMAL trade mark of the plaintiff. [12] Pursuant to the Government Gazette dated 02.06.2016 for the defendant's WALMAR mark, on 08.02.2017, the plaintiff filed the Notice of Opposition (Form TM08) and followed by the counter-statement to the Notice of Opposition dated 06.04.2017 to oppose the defendant's WALMAR mark application. [13] The plaintiff's solicitors had sent two letters dated 12.01.2016 and 02.03.2016 to demand that the defendant among others, immediately cease the use of WALMAR mark. The defendant did not reply to the plaintiff's demands. [14] Hence, the filing of this suit. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff against the defendant are the following Orders as stated in the Statement of Claim asfollows: 1) Satu deklarasi bahawa cap "WARMAL" adalah cap dikenali ramai dalam maksud seksyen 70B Akta Cap Dagang 1976 dan dimiliki oleh plaintiff; 2) Satu deklarasi bahawa plaintiff adalah pemilik sah dan di sisi undang-undang lazim untuk nama korporatnya "Warmal WIL Heavy Duty Pumps Sdn Bhd" dan cap dagang "WARMAL" yang diguna berkaitan dengan perniagaan, produk-produk dan perkhidmatan plaintiff; 3) Satu deklarasi bahawa cap dagang "WALMAR" adalah hamper serupa dengan atau begitu serupa dengan nama WARMAL dan caop dagang WARMAL sehingga ia berkemungkinan besar akan memperdayakan atau mengakibatkan kekeliruan kepada orang dagang dan am; 4) Suatu injunksi tetap untuk menghalang defendant, sam ada bertindak melalui ianya sendiri, pengarah-pengarahnya, pekerja-pekerjanya, orang-orang gajinya atau ejen-ejennya, sama ada secara bersama atau berasingan atau mana-mana mereka ataupun disebaliknya dalam mana-mana cara, dari melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan berikut, iaitu:
section
4. 1. mengelirupa atau mencuba mengelirurupa atau mengakibatkan atau membolehkan atau membantu yang lain untuk mengelirupa produk-produk bukan plaintiff sebagai dan untuk produk-produk plaintiff sedemikian atau dari melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan berikut atau mana-mananya - iaitu, mengilang, mengedar, mengiklan, menjual dan/atau menawar untuk jualan kepada mana-mana orang atau entity dalam perjalanan perdagangan mana-mana produk atau perkhidmatan yang membawa dan/atau dengan rujukan kepada cap yang dipertikaikan "WALMAR" tersebut dan/atau nama WARMAL dan/atau cap dagang WARMAL dan/atau mana-mana mereka dan/atau mana-mana cap, 'get-up', lambang atau reka bentuk yang begitu serupa dengan nama WARMAL dan/atau cao dagang WARMAL sehingga ia berkemungkinan besar akan memperdayakan atau mengakibatkan kekeliruan dan/atau mana-mana cap, 'get-up', lambing atau reka bentuk yang adalah sama dengan itu dengan secara memperdayakan, seakan-akannya atau mengelirukan;
section
4. 2. melanggari cap dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff dengan penggunaan dalam itu dalam perjalanan perdagangan cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut dan/atau cap dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff dan/atau mana-mana cap lain yang serupa dengan atau yang begitu serupa dengan cap dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff di mana penggunaannya berkemungkinan besar akan memperdayakan atau mengakibatkan kekeliruan berkenaan dengan pam-pam, aksesori-aksesori dan alat-alat ganti untuk pam-pam; 'slurry pumps'; 'centrifugal pumps'; mesin-mesin dan perkakas mesin-mesin untuk penggunaan dalam industry kuari dan perlombongan ("tools for use in the quarrying and mining industry"); bahagian-bahagian dan kelengkapan-kelengkapan dengan itu dan/atau pemasangan, penyusunan, pembaikan, kebersihan, perkhidmatan service, penggantian dan penyelengaraan alat-alat ganti untuk pam-pam, mesin-mesin, radas dan peralatan dan/atau mana-mana barangan atau perkhidmatan lain yang adalah sama dengan itu;
section
4. 3. memohon untuk mendaftar sebagai cop dagang perkataan "WALMAR" dan/atau mana-mana perkataan, nama atau reka bentuk lain yang serupa secara memperdayakan, seakan-akannya atau mengelirukan dengan nama WARMAL dan/atau cap dagang WARMAL di Malaysia atau di mana-mana tempat lain di seluruh dunia;
section
4. 4. melakukan perbuatan berulang dengan itu, mendorong atau memperolehi pelanggaran mengganggu perdagangan plaintiff dengan secara menyalahi undang-undang berkenaan dengan nama WARMAL dan/atau cap dagang WARMAL dan/atau cap dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff melalui penggunaan dalam perjalanan perdagangan cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut dan/atau mana-mana cap lain yang begitu serupa dengan nama WARMAL dan/atau cap dagang WARMAL dan/atau dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff sehingga ia berkemungkinan besar akan memperdayakan atau mengakibatkan kekeliruan dan/atau mana-mananya atau mana-mana cap, 'get-up', lambang atau reka bentuk yang serupa dengan itu dengan secara memperdayakan, seakan-akannya atau mengelirukan; dan
section
4. 5. mencetak atau mengguna dalam mana-mana cara pun cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut dan/atau nama WARMAL dan/atau cap dagang WARMAL dan/atau caop dikenali ramai WARMAL plaintiff dan/atau mana-mana nama atau cap atau 'get-up' atau lambang atau reka bentuk atau huruf-huruf lain yang begitu serupa dengan nama WARMAL plaintiff sehingga ia berkemungkinan besar akan memperdayakan atau mengakibatkan kekeliruan atau mana-mana nama atau cap atau 'get-up' atau lambang atau reka bentuk atau huruf-huruf lain yang begitu serupa dengan itu dengan secara memperdayakan, seakanakannya atau mengelirukan, termasuk cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut, atas mana-mana papan tanda, 'signage', iklan, kad perniagaan, notis, 'fascia', dokumen, laman web, 'blog', 'social media platform' atau disebaliknya sebagai nama dagang atau nama perniagaan atau cara dagangnya dengan tanpa autoriti atau keizinan plaintiff; 5) Satu perintah bahawa defendan dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penyerahan Perintah ini melaksanakan penarikan balik permohonan cap dagang untuk cap "WALMAR" dalam Kelas 7 di bawah nombor permohonan cap dagang 2013006803 dari senarai cap-cap dagang yang diporoses yang disimpan oleh Pejabat Harta Intelek Malaysia (MyIPO) dan perlu memberi kepada peguamcara plaintiff suratnya kepada MyIPO, yang diendors dengan sahnya oleh MyIPO, dan mana-mana bukti dokumentari lain untuk penarikan balik permohonan cap dagang yang dipertikaikan sedemikian yang dikeluarkan oleh MyIPO; 6) Suatu perintah bahawa defendan, sama ada bertindak melalui ianya sendiri, pengarah-pengarahnya, pekerja-pekerjanya, orang-orang gajinya atau ejen-ejennya atau mana-mana mereka, ataupun disebaliknya dalam mana-mana cara, menghantar-serah dan menyerah kepada peguamcara plaintiff, orang-orang gaji atau ejen-ejen mereka, atau atas pilihan plaintiff, memusnahkan atas sumpah, semua barangan, artikel-artikel, kertas-kertas, papan-papan tanda, alat-alat tulis dan bahan-bahan dalam milikan, kuasa, jagaan dan/atau kawalan defendan, penggunaan yang mana akan melanggari injunksi-injunksi yang dinyatakan di atas atau mana-mana mereka (selepas ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai 'produk-produk dan bahan-bahan tanpa keizinan'), dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penyerahan Perintah ini; 7) Suatu perintah bahawa pengarah-pengarah defendan dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh penyerahan Perintah ini mengikrarkan dan menyerahkan kepada plaintiff atau peguamcara plaintiff suatu afidavit untuk mengesahkan bahawa selain dari produk-produk dan bahan-bahan yang dihantar-serah dan diserah kepada plaintiff atau peguamcara plaintiff, defendan tidak lagi mempunyai mana-mana produk-produk dan bahan-bahan tanpa keizinan tersebut dalam milikan, kuasa, jagaan dan/atau kawalan mereka; 8) Satu perintah bahawa defendan membayar kepada plaintiff kos untuk penyediaan dan penerbitan dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari dari tarikh penyerahan Perintah ini, dua (2) notis-notis meminta maaf yang berasingan, di mana notis-notis tersebut perlu mempunyai dimensi yang tidak kurang dari muka surat penuh surat khabar, dengan kandungan dan format untuk mana yang perlu dilulus dan ditentukan secara tunggalnya oleh plaintiff, dalam tiga (3) surat khabar tempatan dalam bahasa Inggeris, bahasa Malaysia dan bahasa Cina untuk inter alia, memberitahu orang-orang dagang dan am bahawa produk-produk yang dijual dan/atau ditawar untuk jualan oleh defendan yang membawa cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut bukan produk-produk yang dikilang oleh plaintiff atau yang dikilang di bawah lessen plaintiff dan untuk menyatakan kekesalan atas penggunaan cap yang dipertikaikan tersebut olehnya; 9) Suatu siasatan untuk gantirugi, atau atas pilihan plaintiff suatu akaun untuk keuntungan berkenaan dengan perbuatan perbuatan kekelirupaan, pelanggaran cap dikenali ramai dan gangguan perdagangan plaintiff dengan secara menyalahi undang-undang oleh defendan bersama dengan suatu perintah untuk pembayaran semua jumlah-jumlah yang didapati perlu dibayar selepas siasatan atau akaun sedemikian; 10) Faedah ke atas jumlah-jumlah yang didapati perlu dibayar kepada plaintif pada kadar yang ditentukan oleh Mahkamah mulia ini dari tarikh writ sehingga penyelesaian sepertimana yang dianggap sesuai oleh Mahkamah mulia ini; 11) Kos; 12) Mana-mana relif selanjutnya dan/atau lain sepertimana yang dianggap sesuai oleh Mahkamah mulia ini. [15] In the upshot, the plaintiff is claiming for various declaratory orders and a permanent injunction to restraint the defendant from the said wrongful acts of passing-off, infringement of plaintiff's mark and unlawful interference with trade in relation to the mark and the unauthorized products. The plaintiff also seeking inter alia a delivery-up order as well as an inquiry as to damages or account of profits in respect of the defendant's wrongful acts. [16] The defendant in its Statement of Defence filed, pleaded inter alia that: a. The plaintiff has no locus to initiate the suit. b. The plaintiff has no goodwill over the mark WARMAN. Plaintiff has no association with WARMAN and WALMAR and/or WARMAN is not a well-known mark. c. The defendant is not a direct competitor with the plaintiff because the defendant has different trade market. d. In the slurry pump market, the 'WARMAN' name is a generic name. No customer can be confused by it. e. WARMAL is not a registered mark. No distinctive and deceptively similar to WARMAN. f. The defendant has it's own reputation. g. There is no misrepresentation caused by the defendant. h. There is no damage caused to the plaintiff. PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT [17] At the outset, the learned trial judge found 5 issues to be determined by the High Court as follows:
subsection
(1) whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to sue for the tort of passing off regarding WARMAL Pumps when the plaintiff is only an exclusive manufacturing licensee and sole agent for "WARMAN" pumps in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei;
subsection
(2) if the plaintiff has the locus standi to commence this suit for the tort of passing off, has the defendant committed such a tort?
subsection
(3) whether the defendant has committed the tort of unlawful interference with the plaintiff's business;
subsection
(4) if the defendant has committed the tort of passing off, whether the defendant can rely on the following defences:
a
(a) the defendant only sells "OEM" (Original Equipment Manufacturer) pumps; and
b
(b) disclaimer in the defendant's website.
subsection
(5) is WARMAL mark a well-known trade mark for the purpose of the enforcement of s. 70B(1) Trade Mark Act? [18] At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge was satisfied on the evidence led by the plaintiff. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim of passing off and interference with trade. However, the trial judge did not allow the plaintiff's claim under well-known mark. ISSUES [19] Before us, the learned counsel for the defendant argued on two (2) issues:
a
(a) Goodwill;
b
(b) Locus standi of the plaintiff. Our Decision Locus standi of the plaintiff The defendant's submission [20] Before we embark on the discussion of goodwill, let us first deal with the issue whether the plaintiff has locus standi to commence this suit. It was the defendant's submission that the plaintiff did not have the locus standi to commence the legal action against the defendant. The reason being, that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff showed that the plaintiff is only the exclusive manufacturing and sole agent of WARMAN and no goodwill in the WARMAL name and mark or reputation by association with WARMAN. It was further argued that the plaintiff failed to adduce the Distribution Agreement to prove rights and registered user of WARMAN. Thus, it was submitted that a presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 should be drawn on the basis that the plaintiff did not adduce the so called Distributorship Agreement with Weir Minerals Australia Ltd "to prove the right and limitation of the plaintiff as the sole distributor and registered user of WARMAN". Learned counsel for the defendant highlighted the evidence of Chua Chun Hock (SP1) the Managing Director of the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not inform WARMAN (Wier Minerals) on the suit and the suit was taken without the prior consent of WARMAN Australia. Learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff is not suing as a registered user of WARMAN's trade mark. Instead, the action is taken by the plaintiff under WARMAL for passing off. Hence, the defendant contended that it was the plaintiff itself that is infringing its principal, WARMAN by selling slurry pumps under the trade mark name WARMAL. Applying the principle of construction in bonam partem the plaintiff could not be regarded as being a bona fide party in this suit. The court shall not protect or enforce the right of infringers. It was also submitted for the defendant that the learned trial judge fell into serious error of law in dismissing defendant's arguments on the matter. [21] Learned counsel for the defendant cited the Federal Court decision in LB (Lian Bee) Confectionery Sdn Bhd v QAF Ltd [2012] 4 MLJ 40, to support the defendant's argument. The Plaintiff's Submission [22] Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand argued that the defendant has not established a case of infringement by the plaintiff on the WARMAN mark. It was submitted that the plaintiff's claim is in respect of the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark and the WARMAN mark (which belongs to Weir Minerals Australia Ltd). It was further contended that Weir Minerals was well aware of the plaintiff's use of WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark and that it never objected to the plaintiff's use of the same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff highlighted that the defendant's director Yap Choon Hoong (SD1) himself had admitted that the WARMAL mark and WARMAN mark are different. The plaintiff is not suing in respect of the WARMAN mark. Thus, the distributorship agreement is not relevant and there is no basis for section 114(g) adverse inference to be drawn. [23] It is undisputed facts that the plaintiff was incorporated in 1987 for the sole purpose of marketing and selling WARMAN products in Southeast Asia including Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. The plaintiff was also appointed as the exclusive manufacturing licensee and sole agent for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. On 07.12.1987, Warman published a notice in the New Straits Times (Malaysia) to announce the appointment of the plaintiff as the exclusive manufacturing licensee and sole agent for WARMAN products in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei and Warman's sales representative in Thailand, Hong Kong, Laos, Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam. Warning notices have also been published by Warman in various newspapers which feature the WARMAL nama and WARMAL trade mark. The plaintiff was mentioned as a distributor in the Warman/Wier website. [24] Learned counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the case of LB (Lian Bee) Confectionery Sdn Bhd v QAF Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the present appeal as that case relates to an expungement application. The principle of bonam partem was considered by the Federal Court there in the context of the 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of s. 46(1) of the Trade Mark Act and not for passing-off. [25] The learned trial judge at paragraphs 16-19 of the grounds of judgment was satisfied on the evidence led by the plaintiff and made the findings that the plaintiff had the right to commence the suit as the plaintiff had proven its goodwill in the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark. [26] The following paragraphs of the learned trial judge's grounds of judgment are relevant: "17. I am of the view that a plaintiff has the right to sue for passing off regarding a mark or get-up if the plaintiff has goodwill in the business in respect of the mark or get-up. The plaintiff has the legal burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff enjoys goodwill in the business in respect of WARMAL mark and the plaintiff's name (Plaintiff's Goodwill). I am satisfied that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove the Plaintiff's Goodwill on the balance of probabilities. This findings is based on the following evidence and reasons:
subsection
(1) the plaintiff had adduced brochures and product catalogues for its clients and potential clients regarding WARMAL Pumps (p. 1-15, Bundle B). These brochures and product catalogues have been distributed to the plaintiff's clients and potential clients with a note that such brochures and catalogues are given "With Compliments" from the plaintiff;
subsection
(2) WARMAL mark on a metal plate is affixed by rivet to all WARMAL Pumps sold by the plaintiff;
subsection
(3) performance data regarding WARMAL Pumps has been adduced by the plaintiff in this suit;
subsection
(4) the plaintiff also produced extracts of its audited accounts from 30.4.1987 (date of the plaintiff's incorporation) to the financial year ending 31.7.2015 (Plaintiff's Audited Accounts) which shows that up to 2015, the plaintiff's sale of WARMAL Pumps had been exceeded RM130 million (p. 88-172, Bundle B);
subsection
(5) the Plaintiff's Audited Accounts showed that the plaintiff had spent a certain sum of money in each accounting year for the advertisements, promotion and marketing of WARMAL Pumps. In fact, the plaintiff's name has also been advertised in trade directories such as "Yellow Pages" [as early as 1994 (p.175 of Bundle A)] and "Super Pages" [as early as 2008 (p.177 Bundle A)];
subsection
(6) the plaintiff has a website in its name which promotes the sales of WARMAL Pumps. The plaintiff also has its own domain name, "WARMALPUMP.COM" which is created on 24.9.2013;
subsection
(7) Weir's website has referred to the plaintiff by name; and
subsection
(8) The plaintiff has sold WARMAL Pumps in Singapore and Brunei. Furthermore, the plaintiff's name has been advertised in "Singapore Yellow Pages". The court may consider goodwill of business which crosses national boundaries - please see Portculls Trustnet (Singapore) Pte Ltd v George Pathmanathan a/l Micheal Gandhi Nathan [2017] MLJU 223, at paragraph 124.
section
18. It is clear the word "WARMAL" is not a name, surname, a geographical name, an ordinary word or a purely descriptive term (with direct reference to the character or quality of pumps). As explained in the above paragraph 17, this court is satisfied that there is Plaintiff's Goodwill attached or associated with WARMAL mark and name. I am also satisfied that WARMAL mark and name is distinctive of WARMAL Pumps and the plaintiff's business. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to claim for a tort of passing off in respect or WARMAL mark and name." [27] In relation to the defendant's argument that s. 114(g) should be drawn against the plaintiff for the failure to produce distributorship agreement, the learned trial judge held as follow: "19. In view of the evidence elaborated in the above paragraph 17, I have no hasitation to dismiss the defendant's submission that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file This Suit based on the tort of passing off. Furthermore, the plaintiff's passing off claim is based on WARMAL mark and its name. The plaintiff's passing off action is not based on WARMAN mark. There is therefore no requirement for Warman or Weir to consent to This Suit (based on WARMAL mark and name). There is also no requirement for the plaintiff to adduce the Distributorship Agreement (regarding WARMAN mark) as evidence in This Suit. If the Distributorship Agreement is not material to This Suit, the plaintiff's non-production of the Distributorship Agreement cannot attract an adverse inference under s. 114(g) EA - please see Mohd. Azmi SCJ's judgment in the Supreme Court case of Munusamy v Public Prosecutor [1987] 1 MLJ 492, at 494." [28] We find no appealable error of law or fact in the findings of the learned trial judge which had been based on evidence. To recapitulate, the learned trial judge's findings based on the following evidence:
a
(a) the plaintiff's brochures and product catalogues;
b
(b) metal plate affixed on all WARMAL Pumps sold by the plaintiff;
c
(c) performance data regarding WARMAL Pumps;
d
(d) the plaintiff's audited accounts which show extensive sales of WARMAL Pumps;
e
(e) evidence of the amounts spent by the plaintiff to advertise and promote the WARMAL Pumps;
f
(f) the plaintiff's website which promotes WARMAL Pumps;
g
(g) Warman/Weir's website which promotes WARMAL Pumps;
h
(h) evidence of the sale and promotion of WARMAL Pumps in Singapore and Brunei. [29] On the issue of s.114(g), we similarly find no appealable error on the part of the learned trial judge to warrant our appellate intervention.The learned trial judge considered the law on the authority of an adverse inference as set out in Munusamy v Public Prosecutor (supra). [30] Hence we conclude there is no merit in the defendant's contention on this issue. No Goodwill [31] The second ground canvassed by learned counsel for the defendant is that the plaintiff had failed to establish goodwill for WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark. [32] The reasons being:
a
(a) the plaintiff never sold a single WARMAL pump in the market;
b
(b) tall invoices adduced were invoices of WARMAN pumps;
c
(c) there is no evidence of sale of WARMAL pumps;
d
(d) there is no evidence to show that the brochures and product catalogue for WARMAL pumps has been distributes to the plaintiff's clients;
e
(e) no customer was called by the plaintiff to prove its goodwill and that there was passing off;
f
(f) there are no receipts to show that substantial sum of money have been spent on advertising materials for WARMAL pumps and product;
g
(g) the audited accounts produced by the plaintiff is not for WARMAL's pumps and product but for WARMAN;
h
(h) the plaintiff never sold a single WARMAL pump under WARMAL brand in Singapore and Brunei;
i
(i) the advertisements (including newspapers and Yellow Pages) adduced by the plaintiff only promoting the plaintiff as the agent of WARMAN's product and not the advertisements for WARMAL pumps;
j
(j) The plaintiff's mark on a metal plate is affixed by rivet to all plaintiff's pumps carry a branded and engraved plat of WARMAN and not WARMAL. [33] Thus, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the trial judge fell into serious error of law and facts in assuming that the plaintiff had established goodwill even without sales and promotional evidences in relation to the plaintiff's WARMAL mark. It was submitted that commercial companies can only establish goodwill through sufficient sales and promotional evidences. [34] It was further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff had failed To fulfil the element of goodwill in Reckit Colemen Product Ltd v Borden Inc. & Ors [1990] RPC 341, that is the "Trinity test": (i) reputation; (ii) misrepresentation; and (iii) damage. The Plaintiff's Submission [35] Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submitted that the plaintiff started using the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark since the company was formed on 30.04.1987. Plaintiff's witness SP1 explained that the plaintiff affixed a metal plate with the plaintiff's name by rivet on the pumps supplied by the plaintiff to its customers. [36] It was also submitted that the plaintiff promotes its business in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei through the use of WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark in the following ways:
a
(a) through site visit to potential customers where the plaintiff introduces its products and services, provide proposals and quotations and offer solution to solve their pumping problems;
b
(b) advertisements through trade directories such as Yellow Pages and Super Pages which are also accessible online;
c
(c) participating in trade fairs;
d
(d) promoting its products and services through the Warmal's website;
e
(e) distribution of marketing materials and catalogues as well as use complimentary notes that bears the WARMAL trade mark to customers and potential customers. [37] The plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff's long established business and goodwill in the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark are also evidenced by extracts of the plaintiff's Audited Reports and Financial Statements from 1988-2015 which also showed that the plaintiff's sales up to year 2015 has exceeded RM130 million and substantial sums of money have been spent on advertising and promotion. [38] It was contended for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has adduced credible and substantial evidence of its use of the WARMAL trade mark. [39] The learned trial judge had in paragraph 17 of the grounds of judgment held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the plaintiff's goodwill based on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff during trial. [40] In this regard, the learned trial judge held that (at para 17) - "17. I am of the view that a plaintiff has the right to sue for passing off regarding a mark or get-up if the plaintiff has goodwill in the business in respect of the mark or get-up. The plaintiff has the legal burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff enjoys goodwill in the business in respect of WARMAL mark and the plaintiff's name (Plaintiff's Goodwill). I am satisfied that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove the Plaintiff's Goodwill on the balance of probabilities. This findings is based on the following evidence and reasons:
subsection
(1) the plaintiff had adduced brochures and product catalogues for its clients and potential clients regarding WARMAL Pumps (p. 1-15, Bundle B). These brochures and product catalogues have been distributed to the plaintiff's clients and potential clients with a note that such brochures and catalogues are given "With Compliments" from the plaintiff;
subsection
(2) WARMAL mark on a metal plate is affixed by rivet to all WARMAL Pumps sold by the plaintiff;
subsection
(3) performance data regarding WARMAL Pumps has been adduced by the plaintiff in this suit;
subsection
(4) the plaintiff also produced extracts of its audited accounts from 30.4.1987 (date of the plaintiff's incorporation) to the financial year ending 31.7.2015 (Plaintiff's Audited Accounts) which shows that up to 2015, the plaintiff's sale of WARMAL Pumps had been exceeded RM130 million (p. 88-172, Bundle B);
subsection
(5) the Plaintiff's Audited Accounts showed that the plaintiff had spent a certain sum of money in each accounting year for the advertisements, promotion and marketing of WARMAL Pumps. In fact, the plaintiff's name has also been advertised in trade directories such as "Yellow Pages" [as early as 1994 (p.175 of Bundle A)] and "Super Pages" [as early as 2008 (p.177 Bundle A)];
subsection
(6) the plaintiff has a website in its name which promotes the sales of WARMAL Pumps. The plaintiff also has its own domain name, "WARMALPUMP.COM" which is created on 24.9.2013;
subsection
(7) Weir's website has referred to the plaintiff by name; and
subsection
(8) The plaintiff has sold WARMAL Pumps in Singapore and Brunei. Furthermore, the plaintiff's name has been advertised in "Singapore Yellow Pages". The court may consider goodwill of business which crosses national boundaries - please see Portculls Trustnet (Singapore) Pte Ltd v George Pathmanathan a/l Micheal Gandhi Nathan [2017] MLJU 223, at paragraph 124." [41] Be that as it may, on the issue of goodwill, we find guidance from several authorities including the decision in Service Masters (M) Sdn Bhd v. MHL Master Sdn Bhd [1998] 5 MLJ 378 where it was said: "Goodwill requires business activity. According to the court, the evidence necessary to establish goodwill could be obtained from information relating to the sales and turnover, oral or affidavit evidence of those who had dealt in the plaintiff's product, evidence relating to the number of branches for the plaintiff's product and their geographical spread, evidence relating to the length of time over which the plaintiff had traded and advertised his products, and any evidence of any exhibitions or shows at which the plaintiff had promoted his product." [42] In AG Spalding Brothers v AW Gamage Ltd [1914-1915] All ER Rep 147, at 150, Lord Parker in the House of Lords held that goodwill is attached to a business and not to a mark or get-up. [43] In CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 550, at paragraph 45-50, LP Thean JA explained that goodwill, unlike reputation, does not exist on its own but must be attached to a business. [44] In the case of The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller & Co's Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217, at 223-224, Lord MacNaghten in the House of Lords has described goodwill as an "attractive force which brings in custom". [45] In the case of Crusade Oil NL v Crusader Minerals NZ Ltd [1984] 3 IPR 171, the Federal Court held that goodwill cannot be established merely through registration of a business. [46] The learned trial judge had addressed the issue of the plaintiff's goodwill in its business in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the grounds of judgment by citing a number of authorities that establish clearly that goodwill can extend to a business name - Revertex Ltd & Anor v Slim Rivertex Sdn Bhd & Ors [1991] 1 MLJ 508 at 511; Compagnie Generale Des Eaux v Compagnie Generale Des Eaux Sdn Bhd [1996] 2 BLJ 519 at 535; Dun & Bradstreet (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Anor v Dun & Bradstreet (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 32 at 39 and Excelsior Pte Ltd v Excelsior Sport (S) Pte Ltd [1986] 1 MLJ 130 at 131 (which was cited by Siti Norma Yaakob J in Revertex Ltd & Anor v Slim Rivertex Sdn Bhd (supra); Solavoid Trade Mark [1977] RPC 1, at 30; Reckitt & Colman Products (supra). [47] We are satisfied that the trial judge had applied a correct test in arriving to his findings and decision. We therefore find no basis to conclude that the learned trial judge was plainly wrong on the issue of goodwill. We find the learned trial judge had considered the contemporaneous documents and the whole circumstances and probabilities of the case (Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229). The findings are not perverse. We endorse the finding of the learned trial judge that the plaintiff had proven their case. [48] The plaintiff has established extensive use of the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark as part of the plaintiff's company name and the public have come to identify the WARMAL name as the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to protection of its goodwill and reputation in the WARMAL name and WARMAL trade mark. [49] It is trite law that an appellate court should be slow in disturbing the findings of facts made by a trial court (see Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1993] 1 MLJ 113; Chia Yen Tek v Ng Swee Kiat [1997] 3 MLJ 717; and Yoong Sze Fatt v Pengkalen Securities Sdn Bhd [2010] 1 CLJ 484). CONCLUSION [50] In light of all the above, we unanimously dismiss the defendant's appeal with costs and the order of the High Court dated 15 November 2017 is affirmed. Dated 26 April 2021 Counsel/Solicitors for the Appellant/Defendant: Abdul Qadir Dato' Aros Nursyafiqah binti Zamani Messrs. A.Q. Saqti & Associates Peguambela & Peguamcara AQSA Chambers Lot LG-K10 Setia City Mall Setia Alam 40170 Selangor Counsel/Solicitors for the Respondent/Plaintiff: Ng Yong May Wong Jin Nee & Teo Peguambela & Peguamcara 13A-5, Level 13A Menara Milenium 8 Jalan Damanlela Bukit Damansara 40490 Kuala Lumpur
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.