IPOS found that Future's marks with the eagle devices, were not confusingly similar to those of McDonald's in 2003. This decision was upheld by the High Court in 2004 and the Court of Appeal in 2005.
"The 350 million yuan (US$44 million) we paid for our brand will go to waste, our 20 plants and 1,500 shops will close and 16,710 workers will be jobless".
A high court judge has ordered a property developer to change the name of its yet-to-be completed private housing project, ruling that the name was likely to dilute the brand of one of the worlds most exclusive resorts.
In Industria De Diseno Textil SA v Edition Concept, the defendant applied to amend the Trademarks Register to expunge the plaintiffs ZARA mark on the ground that it had used the Zara mark and made it well-known in Malaysia in respect of clothing well before the plaintiff's trade mark was approved.
High Court found it guilty of passing off and infringement of the mark owned by Yomeishu Seizo Co Ltd on the ground of confusion due to different languages and phonetic sound.
Sunglass Hut, the leading specialty retailer in sunglasses, claimed that aaanet-inc.'s use of www.sunglasshot.com was "confusingly similar" to its own www.sunglasshut.com URL and should therefore be considered an infringement of the Sunglass Hut trademark.
Danone accused its business partner of selling products that competed with those made by the joint venture company and which were illegally branded with the Wahaha mark.
