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
 

denied by the respondents (siblings of the appellant) who assert that the trademark is the property of them as part of the estate of their parents and they have every right to use it. Both sides have been using the trademark in question and eventually the appellant filed a suit prayed for a declaration that he is the owner of the “harp” trademark and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from using the identical or similar trademark as consequential relief under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

In his judgement, hon’ble Mr. Justice U Thaung Sein observed: “ On the whole, there can be no doubt that after the death of U Hla Gyaw, the appellant carried on the slipper business and utilized the Saungauk trade mark. It is also clear that the first respondent Ma Than started her business many months after the appellant. By then the appellant had already acquired the right to the use of the Saungauk trademark and the first respondent Ma Than was not entitled to invade that right. The appellant was thus entitled to succeed in his suit.”

Similarly in the case of Maung Sein Brothers Vs The Burma Plastic Moulders24, the respondents sued appellants for a declaration that they are the sole owners of the design which had been registered to the exclusive user of the said design on combs manufactured and sold by them. They also asked for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from manufacturing or selling combs bearing a similar design, for damages and for delivery to them of all the dies, implements, moulds, etc., used by the appellant for the purpose of manufacturing combs in imitation of their design. In his judgement hon’ble Mr.Justice U San Maung observed; “ No doubt it is true that the defendants – appellants’ combs are almost identical in shape and design to that of the plaintiffs-respondents’. However this being not a passing off action, the only point which requires consideration is whether the plaintiffs’ design is new or original. Having come to the conclusion that it not, the plaintiffs’ suit must be dismissed."

Up to this point it is considered to be sufficient for a reader to know how an aggrieved person is capable to achieve remedy by means of the provisions of the prevailing Acts in our country.

(c) The Sea Customs Act

Like the Acts above, it was formerly enacted as India Act No. VIII of 1878 and it’s seemed to be enforceable since the 1st day of April 1878. Having after occupied the lower part of our country there were series of shipping on trading to and fro our country. Since the British authorities were concerned about trading affairs they later adopted this Act to introduce in our country. Except for the ammendent enacted by our succeeding government in 1959, this Act except for a new offence of “attempt ” inserted as section 167 B, is still in force. The section in this Act relating to I.P is provided in sections 18 & 19 of Chapter IV . In section 18 ,the goods not allowed to import to Myanmar either by land or by sea are listed in no.(d) and (e) as follows:
(d) Goods having applied thereto a counterfeit trade-mark within the meaning of the Penal Code, or a false trade-description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act:
(e)Goods made or produced beyond the limis of the Unied Kingdom, India or Pakistganand the Union of Burma having applied tghereto any name or rademark being, or purporting tgo be, the name or trademark or any person who is a manufacturer, dealer or trader in the lUnited Kingdom, in India or Pakistan or in the Union of lBurma unless-

(i)the name or trade-mark as to every application thereof , accompanied by a definite indicatiion of the goods having been made or produced in a place beyond the limits of the Uited Kingdom, India or Pakistan and the union of Burma: and

(ii) the Country in which that place is situated is in that indication indicated in letters as large and...

 

24 1964 Burma Law Reports 32 (Chief Court)

 

<< 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.