Intellect FrontTrademark & Intellectual Property Management.
 
home    |    our services    |    service inquiry    |    tm cases    |    tm news    |    tm resources
 
Trademark Search
Trademark Registration
Trademark Renewal
Trademark Assignment
International Trademark

 
 
Our Advantage

Experience You Can Trust

Professional Service

Affordable Price

100% Satisfaction Guarantee
 

Trademark Cases

Singapore: MacDonalds v Future Enterprises
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.
Singapore: Crocodile International v LACOSTE
"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".
Singapore: Amanusa
A high court judge has ordered a property developer to change the name of its yet-to-becompleted private housing project, ruling that the name was likely to dilute the brand of one of the worlds most exclusive resorts.
Malaysia: Zara
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.
Malaysia: Yomeishu
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.
Domain name dispute - Sunglasshot.com
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.
China: Danone and Wahaha
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.
China: Starbuck v Xinbake
Starbuck filed a lawsuit against Shanghai Xingbake claiming it had violated the rule of fair competition and infringed upon the trademark of U.S.
Indonesia: Prestone
Prestone found that a local company was marketing and distributing a brand of brake oil and hydraulic brake oil bearing the trade mark Prestop.

powered by genuine technology