Industrial DesignThe claim brought

Industrial DesignThe claim brought by Honda was based on several industrial design registrations in Malaysia in respect of a motor scooter, the rear combination lamp, leg shields and handle cover equipped with lights of a motor scooter. These designs pertained to parts of a motorcycle and the vehicle proper embodied in the said HONDA WAVE 125 motorcycle.On the issue of the validity of the design, the court held firstly that once a design has been gazetted, the court will presume that the administrative work gearing towards the registration was duly performed by the Registrar in a regular manner and that all the necessary documentation was filed and that it complied with the legal requirements of the law pertaining to registration. Thereby the registration was valid. This presumption of regularity is not restricted to the question of scrutinizing whether the right forms have been correctly filled or the right fees have been paid, but also extends to the application of the mind when construing whether the design concerned is within the scope of the provisions of the law. Therefore unless there is any evidence to displace it, the court will accept that the registration was regularly carried out. This has the impact of making all industrial designs valid unless proven otherwise notwithstanding there being no substantive examination in Malaysia in respect of industrial designs.As to challenging the issue of validity, the defendants however claimed that the industrial designs concerned were not new as Honda had launched the said WAVE 125 motorcycle earlier in Thailand and so their registration of the industrial design in Malaysia was flawed. The court held that as the defendants had thrown in the challenge, the burden is on them to establish invalidity following the English decision of AMP Incorporated v Utilux Proprietary Ltd [1972] RPC 103.On the issue of whether the design was new or not, the court rejected the argument that earlier use in Thailand would defeat novelty in Malaysia. This was as the relevant provision of the Industrial Designs Act states that the design is not considered new if it was disclosed to the public anywhere in Malaysia, or was the subject matter of another application with an earlier priority date. The provision therefore suggests that anything outside the scope of those two variables may be taken to be new and so the ingredient of novelty is obviously territorial. Thereby any search requirement in respect of novelty for industrial designs would need to be limited to within Malaysia only.The court then went on to compare the infringing design with Honda's designs by looking at the designs, sketches and pictures as well as comparing the physical product. The court held on a balance of probabilities the defendants' COMEL MANJA JMP 125 was an obvious imitation of the Honda's WAVE 125 and so there was a serious issue to be tried.

Industrial Design
The claim brought by Honda was based on several industrial design registrations in Malaysia in respect of a motor scooter, the rear combination lamp, leg shields and handle cover equipped with lights of a motor scooter. These designs pertained to parts of a motorcycle and the vehicle proper embodied in the said HONDA WAVE 125 motorcycle.
On the issue of the validity of the design, the court held firstly that once a design has been gazetted, the court will presume that the administrative work gearing towards the registration was duly performed by the Registrar in a regular manner and that all the necessary documentation was filed and that it complied with the legal requirements of the law pertaining to registration. Thereby the registration was valid. This presumption of regularity is not restricted to the question of scrutinizing whether the right forms have been correctly filled or the right fees have been paid, but also extends to the application of the mind when construing whether the design concerned is within the scope of the provisions of the law. Therefore unless there is any evidence to displace it, the court will accept that the registration was regularly carried out. This has the impact of making all industrial designs valid unless proven otherwise notwithstanding there being no substantive examination in Malaysia in respect of industrial designs.
As to challenging the issue of validity, the defendants however claimed that the industrial designs concerned were not new as Honda had launched the said WAVE 125 motorcycle earlier in Thailand and so their registration of the industrial design in Malaysia was flawed. The court held that as the defendants had thrown in the challenge, the burden is on them to establish invalidity following the English decision of AMP Incorporated v Utilux Proprietary Ltd [1972] RPC 103.
On the issue of whether the design was new or not, the court rejected the argument that earlier use in Thailand would defeat novelty in Malaysia. This was as the relevant provision of the Industrial Designs Act states that the design is not considered new if it was disclosed to the public anywhere in Malaysia, or was the subject matter of another application with an earlier priority date. The provision therefore suggests that anything outside the scope of those two variables may be taken to be new and so the ingredient of novelty is obviously territorial. Thereby any search requirement in respect of novelty for industrial designs would need to be limited to within Malaysia only.
The court then went on to compare the infringing design with Honda's designs by looking at the designs, sketches and pictures as well as comparing the physical product. The court held on a balance of probabilities the defendants' COMEL MANJA JMP 125 was an obvious imitation of the Honda's WAVE 125 and so there was a serious issue to be tried.