That the defendants had infringed the plaintiff’s artistic and literary copyright pertaining to the plaintiff’s tumbler by the defendants’ unauthorized and unlawful reproductions of the plaintiff’s tumbler The plaintiff then commenced this suit against the defendants and claimed that it had three causes of action against the defendants: The plaintiff’s response was that it had the proprietary rights to their chlorination tumbler and to promotional leaflets containing product specification and photographic representations of the tumbler, and they took an advertisement in a leading local English language newspaper to that effect in July 1998. The defendants had in the first quarter of 1998 published and advertised their tumbler in a trade publication being the Malaysian Rubber Glove Manufacturer’s Association newsletter, and in their website. In respect of the fourth defendant’s involvement with the plaintiff, he joined the plaintiff as an applications specialist in1990 and went on to be a branch executive in 1994 and left the plaintiff’s employment in 1996. The various companies formed by the former employee became the first, second and third defendants in the suit while the former employee himself became the fourth defendant.
Those companies also manufactured a chlorination tumbler machine, which they called “Powder free PP Tumbler” or “FRP Tumbler”. One of its former employees upon leaving the plaintiff went on to form and set up various companies of which he became a director and shareholder. In this case the plaintiff company was in the business of manufacturing and selling rubber glove chlorination tumblers, which were named “Chlorination Tumbler”.
The protection of engineering designs by way of copyright and passing-off in Malaysia was dealt with by the High Court in Malaysia in the case of Hexagon Tower Sdn Bhd v Polydynamic Holdings Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors 4 AMR 384.
0 kommentar(er)
