TRESPASS TO LAND BUKIT LENANG ADVANCEMENT SDN BHD v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ORS  one particular CLJ SPECIFICS The individual purchased a land via Oakfield Corporations Sdn Bhd through a sale and purchase agreement dated 15 May mil novecentos e noventa e seis. The individual was informed at that time from the presence of squatters for the land.
Following a said order, the plaintiff commenced eviction proceedings up against the squatters and succeeded in obtaining common sense where the courtroom ordered the squatters give up vacant own the subject area to plaintiff.
The litigant’s solicitors required that second defendant cease supply of electrical power and take away all buildings in connection with the provision by letter dated twenty-eight April 2005. Plaintiff provides a suit due to second defendant’s refusal to abide by the demand. The defence counsel, however , asserted that second defendant wasn’t able to be organised liable for trespass in view of it is statutory responsibility under the Electrical power Supply Take action 1990 (ESA), and the plaintiff had did not distinguish between the lots held by the individual and the remaining portion of the land.
PROBLEMS 1 . Whether second defendant’s failure to comply with litigant’s demand to cease flow of electricity and remove structures in plaintiff’s land may be amounted to trespass to land? 2 . Whether second defendant liable for trespass to some extent? JUDGMENT 1 ) The Substantial Court experienced come into a conclusion the fact that second defendant liable for trespass to the degree of providing electricity to legal occupants in litigant’s land.
The illegal occupants did not have authority to permit TNB because licensee to position any buildings on the land of the cables or perhaps wires to run over the litigant’s lots which will would be trespass. A valid and subsisting Substantial Court order declaring the occupants’ status as squatters or trespassers had been offered on second defendant and they had to abide by the litigant’s demand to cease flow of electricity premised on a valid and enforceable order.
Second defendant as a public utility provider had failed to discontinue the trespass when due notice of illegal profession had been given. 2 . Plaintiff got vide its solicitors’ page of 28 April 2005 put second defendant to see that the the courtroom had established that the occupiers on the plaintiff’s land who was simply supplied electrical energy were trespassers and the whole lot numbers held by the plaintiff were provided. The defence raised there is no evidence of any response from second to the impact that the litigant’s lots could hardly be identified from the entire piece of land.
The occupants staying squatters had been strangers towards the plaintiff although second defendant was in own records demonstrating their details and location from the households that had electricity supply. Therefore, the issue of non-identification or demarcation of the plaintiff’s lots did not arise in this instance. 3. So , second accused were held responsible for trespassing plaintiff’s land simply by placing wires and wiring to run more than plaintiff’s a lot and also by simply supplying electrical power to illegal occupants in plaintiff’s area.
COMMENTARY I agree on behalf of High Court’s decision where second defendant (Telekom Malaysia Bhd) should be responsible for trespassing into plaintiff’s (Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd). This is because they’d been up to date earlier by simply plaintiff’s solicitor to end supply of electrical energy and take away all constructions in connection with the supply by notice dated twenty eight April 2004 but they still failed to accomplish that. They also understand that the people they may be supplying the electricity happen to be illegal occupants of plaintiff’s land.
Coming from a legal view, even simply by placing something on other peoples land and continue the act would be considered as trespass to area. So , second defendant had trespass plaintiff’s land intentionally as they had been informed earlier to abide by it. Furthermore, second defendant’s action of supplying electricity to the against the law occupants is certainly immoral simply by abetting and conspires with them to take up plaintiff’s area illegally. Consequently , in meaning view, they must avoid via doing so. In summary, High Court’s decision that second accused liable for trespassing plaintiff’s area is reasonable.
PASSING OFF DANONE BISCUITS MANUFACTURING (M) SDN BHD V. HWA TAI INDUSTRIES BHD  8 MLJ 500 SPECIFICS In early 04 2001, the Plaintiff found that the accused, Hwa Tai Industries Bhd, had been developing and providing chocolate chip cookies bearing the trademark “Chipsplus. The plaintiff subsequently requested that the accused cease the manufacture and sale of cookies bearing this trademark, for the basis the fact that trademark, and also get-up and packaging of the product, were confusingly just like their listed “ChipsMore draw.
However , the defendant declined to do so, and thus, the individual sued the defendant to get trademark intrusion and completing off. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s “Chipsplus trademark infringed upon its signed up trademark, while the similar get-up and product packaging of the cookies amounted for the defendant passing off the “Chipsplus cookies as the Plaintiff’s “ChipsMore cookies, which affected their particular business, standing and goodwill in Malaysia.
The defendant however rejected the litigant’s claims, and additional contended which the “ChipsMore enrollment had lapsed, and was therefore broken. ISSUES 1 ) Whether Hwa Tai Industries Bhd is liable for completing off defendant’s chocolate chip cookies “ChipsMore” trademark? JUDGMENT 1 ) It was held that the defendant’s mark “CHIPSPLUS used on peanut butter cookies would be to bring bring about confusion towards the public because the indicate “CHIPSPLUS plus the Plaintiff’s registered mark intended for “CHIPSMORE for the same product happen to be conceptually related.
The courtroom found the defendant was liable for violation because the individual had a enrollment certificate and renewal certificate evidencing a valid trademark, plus the Plaintiff hadn’t given the defendant permission to use all their trademark. Furthermore, as “Chipsplus was a lot like “ChipsMore, there is a possibility of confusion or deception numerous public. Court docket found in the plaintiff’s favor and allowed the litigant’s claim pertaining to infringement and passing away. COMMENTARY
My spouse and i am up against the decision manufactured by the the courtroom as the mark , CHIPSPLUS’ employed by defendant was just like merely to use the word , CHIPSPLUS’ to promote their new cookies items with extra and additional potato chips and it is not required to prove that the word , CHIPSPLUS’ can be used by individual only. Different manufacturers can easily have liberty to use virtually any appropriate term as labeled for their products as long as it will not totally replicate other manufacturer’s product packaging. Plaintiff probably has the idea to promote their very own chips cookies by using the , CHIPSPLUS’ phrase too and not have the intention to pass away defendant’s hallmark.