Intellectual belongings refers to the ownership of material assets. The jurisprudence for this type of belongings exists to protect and acknowledge an writer ‘s rights on their creativeness and advanced work every bit good as rights of manufacturers on their productions. A hallmark can besides be owned by any single or organisation and it can non be repeated. As such, man of affairs may take to register for a hallmark foremost as it will protect the proprietor against other bargainers or man of affairss who might try to sell their merchandises. However, registering a hallmark is non mandatory in Singapore. For unregistered hallmarks, they may utilize TM ( hallmark ) or SM ( service grade ) to stand for their ownership. As for registered hallmarks, A® symbol is used for representation. Businessman chose to register for hallmark as it will protect the proprietor against other man of affairs who might do usage of his repute to sell the merchandises.
A bargainer is non allowed to sell other individual ‘s merchandises and claim it his ain. A bargainer is besides non allowed to utilize names, Markss, letters or other indicia to take clients in believing that it is his ain merchandises. Businessmens have the demand to turn out that they had owned and besides built up repute in an unregistered trade grade in order to win in a passing off action. However, business communities besides have to turn out that the other bargainer has mistaken his merchandises and your merchandises and caused you to endure harm and loss.
There are 3 differences found by comparing hallmarks and go throughing off- Protection, Entitlement to action and Trade Mark Infringement. Trademark protects registered hallmarks merely whereas go throughing off protects both registered and unregistered hallmarks. Trademark enrollment is cogent evidence of ownership. Goodwill and repute need non be proven whereas good will and repute demands to be proven for go throughing off. Both civil and condemnable proceedings are available whereas merely civil redresss are available for go throughing off.
If a man of affairs choose non to brand its name and logo, they risk others following and utilizing similar hallmarks and Sons. They besides risk losing the givens of ownership and cogency a hallmark enrollment provides. They may besides put on the line the loss of countrywide rights to the grade and being limited to the country where they do the most concern.
McDonalds vs. McCurry Case
“ McCurry, the eating house that defied the Big Mac wins eight-year conflict ”
Super-sized triumph: McCurry eating house proprietor A.M.S.P. Suppiah and his married woman Kanageswary airs in forepart of their restaurant as they celebrate a tribunal triumph over McDonald ‘s in Kuala Lumpur
In 2006, McDonald ‘s won a five-year legal conflict in Malaysia against a little eating house named “ McCurry ” . The suspect claimed that McCurry stood for Malaysian Chicken Curry, but a High Court justice ruled that the prefix Mc and the usage of colourss distinctive of the McDonald ‘s trade name could confound and deceive clients.
In April 2009, McCurry won the instance once more after a retrial. McDonald ‘s lost an eight-year hallmark conflict in a precedent-setting judgement by Malaysia ‘s highest tribunal. McDonald ‘s argued that McCurry is go againsting their hallmark prefix “ Mc ” and wanted the tribunal to censor McCurry from utilizing the prefix. McCurry defended by stating that it serves Indian nutrient and is an abbreviation for Malayan Chicken Curry. McCurry attorney Sri Devi Nair said the opinion means McDonald ‘s does non hold a monopoly on the prefix ‘Mc, ‘ and that other eating houses could besides utilize it every bit long as they distinguish their nutrient from McDonald ‘s. McDonald ‘s attorneies were unable to indicate out mistakes in the Appeal Court opinion, which had said there was no grounds to demo that McCurry was go throughing off McDonald ‘s concern as its ain.
McDonald ‘s will hold to pay 10,000 ringgit ( ?1,760 ) to McCurry, a popular restaurant in Jalan Ipoh on the border of Kuala Lumpur.
We feel that the Court has made a right judgement in this instance. McDonalds is already good known worldwide and consumers would be good educated about the merchandises McDonalds. Before the instance, McCurry was a little restaurant that was merely available Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. McCurry, which sells Indian fast nutrient, is wholly different from McDonalds, which sells chiefly beefburgers.
We besides feel that McDonalds protecting their hallmark prefix “ Mc ” is all right because it needs to be steadfast. For illustration in the instance of McDonalds vs. MacJoy, both corporation were selling similar nutrient merchandises and both were utilizing similar “ M ” design logo which were arch-like, capitalized and conventionalized mode.
But in the instance of McDonalds vs. McCurry, McCurry did n’t hold similar “ M ” logo to that of McDonalds.
SingTel vs. Mitac Case
Mitac is a company incorporated in Taiwan and it has concerns in supplying computed merchandises, cyberspace contraptions, radio communicating merchandises and photoelectric applications.
SingTel is a telecommunications group in Singapore and is the proprietor of assorted hallmarks including “ Mio Box ” in computing machine modems and internet connexion.
In 2003, Mitac registered the Mio hallmark in Singapore.
In 2007, SingTel ‘s registered the Mio hallmark and it was ab initio issued under a different merchandise class than Mitac ‘s hallmark. On 30 October, the class of the hallmark was changed and it became the same as Mitac. Mitac claimed that SingTel had infringed their hallmark under Section 27 ( 1 ) , 27 ( 2 ) and 31 ( 5 ) .
The Court compared the Markss of both SingTel and Mitac and found that both were neither indistinguishable nor similar. The Court besides rejected Mitac ‘s statements that SingTel ‘s “ Mio ” hallmark is merely used in computing machine, nomadic phones merchandises. Furthermore, the Court has found that SingTel had made the attempt to educate consumers about their merchandise. Therefore, there was no confusion between Mitac and SingTel.
In the terminal, the Court dismissed Mitac ‘s suit against SingTel and this determination is now under entreaty.
We feel that the Court has made the right determination in this instance because the merchandises of both Mitac and Singtel registered with the hallmark “ Mio ” are different. Mitac ‘s merchandises that are related to the hallmark “ Mio ” are largely computing machine, computing machine accoutrements, telecasting and nomadic phones whereas Singtel ‘s merchandises are largely internet connexion and set-top boxes.
We besides feel that since Mitac registered the hallmark before Singtel did. Singtel might be holding the purpose to copy Mitac hallmark and base on balls it off as their ain and hope to avoid a case as both Mitac and Singtel ‘s merchandises are different.
Effectss on consumers and concerns:
Monetary cost due to tribunal Proceedings
Monetary cost to reconstruct trade name name
Loss of repute with other concerns
Loss of trust in consumers.
1 ) Loss of Monetary Cost ( To Business )
( I ) Due to Court Proceedings
The legal cost of right of first publication violation if the concern decides to take actions is huge. The cost of engaging a attorney foe illustration is in no little amount and may set a dent in the concern ‘s fiscal resources. This in bend would be the growing of the concern to endure. If the concern is ordered by the tribunal to pay a all right, this would increase the pecuniary loss from the legal procedure A drawn-out instance will besides be the concern more, as attorneies are sometimes paid a hourly fee for every hr they work for the concern.
Due to Rebuilding Brand Name
The legal procedure may besides be the concern the unity and dependability of its trade name name to Consumers, irrespective of whether they win or lose the instance because consumers tend trust on the unity of the company.
Companies normally spend a immense sum of money for constructing their trade name names so as to construct
on their repute among consumers.
A legal instance may stain the concern trade name name such that it may do the trade name name to be distrusted by consumers, in which money would be needed to reconstruct its image in promotion advertizements for the trade name name.
2 ) Loss of repute with other companies
Repute with other companies can be damaged by such legal actions as it may demo that the concern is a non every bit dependable as idea and as such harm its unity every bit good. Trademark Infringement may be taken as plagiarism by a company which discourages other companies to work together with the affected concern. Deals with other companies may be harder to make as the trust between the companies has been damaged and trust may be lost due to the instance.
3 ) Loss of trust in consumers
A high profile instance may agitate the trust a consumer has in a company ‘s trade name name and would be the company to lose their existing and possible clients every bit good. This causes the company to lose out to its rivals every bit good as attention deficit disorder on to the cost in money for its operations designed to recover consumer trust in the market, which may non to the full retrieve.
Tay, Catherine Swee Kian, 2004. A usher to protecting your thoughts, innovations and trade grade merchandises. Singapore: Timess Editions/Marshall Cavendish
Doris Chia. , ed. , 2011. You & amp ; The Law 4TH Edition. 4th erectile dysfunction. SAWL
Patrick Mirandah Co, 2009, SingTel Strikes First Blow In “ Mio ” Trade Mark Suit, Mirandah [ online ] 24 July. Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //mirandah.com/en/categories/item/100-singtel-strikes-first-blow-in- % E2 % 80 % 9Cmio % E2 % 80 % 9D-trade-mark-suit.html
IDG News Service, International Data Group, 2008, SingTel Sued By Mitac Over Mio Brand, CIO [ online ] 25Nov. Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cio.com/article/465928/SingTel_Sued_By_Mitac_Over_Mio_Brand
IDG News Service, International Data Group, 2008, Mitac Loses Mio Trademark Suit in Singapore, CIO [ online ] 02 Dec.
Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cio.com/article/467664/Mitac_Loses_Mio_Trademark_Suit_in_Singapore
Tia Jackson, 2011, Trademark 101: How To Protect Your Business, BrandMakerNews [ online ] 04 May.
Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //brandmakernews.com/business-brand/2612/trademark-101-how-to-protect-your-business.html
LAC Lawyers Sydney and Melbourne, 2008, The Importance Of Trade Mark Registration In Protecting Your Business, LAC Lawyers Pty Ltd [ online ] 05 June.
Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.laclawyers.com.au/document/The-Importance-of-Trade-Mark-Registration-in-Protecting-Your-Business.aspx
Leslie Truex, Demand Media, What is the Differences Between a Brand Name and Trademark? Hearst newspaper [ online ] .
hypertext transfer protocol: //smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-brand-name-trade-mark-3580.html
Mail Foreign Service, 2009, McCurry the Restaurant That Defies the Big Mac Wins 8-Years Battle, Associated Newspaper Part of the Daily Maiil on Sunday & A ; Metro Media Group [ online ] 08 Sept.
Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211873/McDonalds-vs-McCurry-Fast-food-giant-loses-year-trademark-battle-local-Malaysian-restaurant.html
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.bbb.org/us/storage/113/documents/BBB Gallup Charts/BBBSpeakersBureau-PPT-FINAL-21May08-6.pdf, BBB.org
The Law Society Of Singapore Website.
Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.lawsociety.org.sg/public/you_and_your_lawyer/legal_costs.aspx, jurisprudence society Singapore
Referenced followed the format of: hypertext transfer protocol: //libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm