Myanmar Trademark
And
Patent Law Firm

Advocates Legal Consultants
Trademark Agents

Home
About Us
Trademark
Patent
Design
Copyright
Registration
Requisite documents
IP Background
Protection of trademark ownership rights
Other Information
Contact Us

IP Background

1 >> 2 >> 3 >> 4 >> 5 >> 6 >> 7 >> 8 >> 9 >> 10
>> 11 >> 12 >> 13 >> 14 >> 15 >> 16 >> 17 >> 18
 

the contention that the accused acted without intent to defraud. A trader cannot adopt a trade mark which causes his goods to bear the same name in the market as that by which the goods of a rival trader are known.”

Similarly, the terms false trademark, using such mark, intent to defraud etc., were observed in following two cases:

In King Emperor Vs Po Saing13 it was held; “A sold illuminant kerosene oil of his own refining in tins originally issued with oil of the same description by B and bearing B’s trade mark. The tins had been altered in minor particulars, and paper labels indicating the true manufacturer of oil had been affixed. The bodies of the tins, however, on which B’s trademark appeared, remained unaltered. A had committed an offence punishable under section 482 of the Indian Penal Code.”

In Abdul Shakur Vs. Emperor14, it was held; “ Where the accused is using a false trademark the burden is upon him to show that he is using such mark without intent to defraud. The physical resemblance between the two marks must be taken into consideration. The fact that one mark may in the market be known under the same name as another is not necessarily a violation of the rights of the owner of the first mark. There must be some inherent similarity in the marks themselves which justifies the use of the same name for both.”

Remaining provisions of sections 482 to 489, (except from section 488) are generally considered to be penalty clauses for using, making, counterfeiting, tempering etc of trademark or property mark. A person liable to such offences may be punished with imprisonment which may variably extend to one to three years or with fine or with both it is stated.

We might say that we have dealt with brief but precise account on the provisions of the Code and its consequential proceedings so far concerning with I.P. (especially for trademark) in Burma (Myanmar).

Lets turning our attention on the remedy which are usually granted in suits concerning with infringement of trademark. Our Courts have been trying civil suits after the Code of Civil Procedure15 was adopted from India. Section 9 in Part 1 of this Code empowered jurisdiction which reads: “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suit of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation . - A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested in a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. ” Hence the suits are forwarded.

It is due to the established principle or settled law that a person, aggrieved by the infringement of his mark, fails to resort to the criminal Courts within a year of the offence coming to his knowledge the law assumes that the case is not one of urgency and it leaves him to his civil remedy by an action of injunction. But the time for taking an action in nature of civil law suit is not limitless. In Aga Mahmood Vs . Edward Peltzer16 it was held: “A fresh right to sue accrues in respect of each infringement until the trade mark has become publici juris. The period of limitation in a suit for an injunction to restrain from the infringement of a trade mark is prescribed by Art. 120 of Limitation Act17.” And it was held further: “that the infringement of a trade mark is a wrong and that a right to sue accrues to the person wronged for and in respect of every wrongful act committed until such act becomes, as it may be in some cases, no longer wrongful; that in the case of a......

13 Lower Burma Rulings Vol 4. p. 192
14 1936 All India Law Reports (Rangoon Series) p. 96.
15 India Act V, 1908 (1st Jan’1909)
16 Lower Burma Rulings Vol2. p.113.
 
<< previous

 

next page >>

 

 

 


To contact us :

Rm.304, 3rd Floor,
567,MACTower,
Merchant Road,
Kyauktada Tsp.,
Yangon, Myanmar.
GPO. 666
Tel : (951) 254394 / 376318
Fax : (951) 249850  
E-mail :
website : www.myanmarpatent.com

Home | About Us | Trademark | Patent | Design | Copyright | Registration | IP Background | Other Information | Contact Us


2008~2014 Myanmar Trademark And Patent Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Web Developer: Myanmars.NET, Yangon,  Myanmar.