Scribd
Upload
176 views2 pages

Anton Piller Order

The Plaintiff sells Mexican buns and sought an Anton Piller order to search and seize documents or products bearing its trademark from 3 defendants. The order was set aside as the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. Specifically, the court found that the Plaintiff's trademark was not registered and thus infringement could not be proven. Additionally, the trademark used by the Defendants was distinct from the Plaintiff's registered trademark. The court also noted the Plaintiff provided no evidence that the Defendants used the trademark in trade. Finally, the court found damages would be a more adequate remedy than an Anton Piller order.

Uploaded by

Kahmun Hor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
176 views2 pages

Anton Piller Order

The Plaintiff sells Mexican buns and sought an Anton Piller order to search and seize documents or products bearing its trademark from 3 defendants. The order was set aside as the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. Specifically, the court found that the Plaintiff's trademark was not registered and thus infringement could not be proven. Additionally, the trademark used by the Defendants was distinct from the Plaintiff's registered trademark. The court also noted the Plaintiff provided no evidence that the Defendants used the trademark in trade. Finally, the court found damages would be a more adequate remedy than an Anton Piller order.

Uploaded by

Kahmun Hor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Recent case setting aside Anton Piller order

Papparoti (M) Sdn Bhd v Roti-roti International Sdn Bhd, Papparich Group
Sdn Bhd and Niche Lifestlye Group Sdn Bhd [2009] 1 LNS 683
The Plaintiff sells Mexican buns and ordered for an Anton Piller Order to
permit a search and seizure at 3 premises belonging to the 3 defendants
respectively, documents or products, which bear the trademark of the
Plaintiff.

The order was set aside in the High Court as it was held that the Plaintiffs
had failed to establish a strong prima facie case against the Defendants.
The reasons as follows:a) No serious issue to be tried
No infringement if the trademark has not been registered according
to S. 82(1) of the Trade Mark Act (Act 175). The judge also found
that the trademark claim dealt with food outlets but the claim was
directed to bakery products. The judge found that the trademark
used by the Defendants that was purportedly claimed for
infringement, was highly distinct from the one that was registered
by the Plaintiffs.
It was mentioned in the case that trademarks are territorial in
nature which meant that the Plaintiffs right were not extensive to
other countries where there is a similar registered trademark by a
foreign proprietor.
The High Court judgment also asserts that for a passing-off claim,
three essential elements have to be proved:i)
ii)
iii)

That there is a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods


belonging to the Plaintiff, in the mind of the purchasing
public;
There was a misrepresentation by the Defendants in the
course of trade, to the public likely to lead the public to
believe that the goods offered were the goods of the Plaintiff;
That the Plaintiff would suffer actual damage to its business
or goodwill due to misrepresentation

b) Material Non-Disclosure
The Plaintiff did not provide any evidence showing use of the
Plaintiffs trademark by the Defendants in the course of trade.
c) Balance of Convenience
The judge found that a more adequate remedy for the Plaintiffs
would be to claim for damages.

Solid Gold Publishers Sdn Bhd v Chan Wee Ho & Ors

The Plaintiffs claimed to have exclusive license to the copyright to certain


items, granted by the principal owners. They claimed an Anton Piller
Order, which was granted. The Defendants then applied to set aside the
order and the Court granted the application ab initio with exemplary
damages.
The judge held that the affidavits submitted by the Plaintiffs were not
supported with authorities and the Plaintiffs had failed to supply fullest
information and evidence supporting their claims.
He had set aside the order due to:a) The lack of locus standi of the deponents of the affidavits
b) The absence of sufficient supporting evidence
c) The confusion of the ownership of the claimed infringed items
d) The Plaintiffs unwillingness to admit probable business relationship
that exist between the Applicants and the Plaintiffs

You might also like