Italian luxury car manufacturer, Ferrari, has lost a court case over a trademark dispute with a local energy drink company over their double-horse logo.
According to a report by Berita Harian, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Ferrari’s suit against Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd and ruled that their drink, Wee Power’s logo did not resemble Ferrari’s trademark to the point of causing confusion. Judge Adlin Abdul Majid added that Ferrari’s claim regarding the possibility of confusion was unfounded.
This means that Wee Power can proceed to be registered.
Where it all started
Before this, Ferrari had filed an originating summons against Sunrise-Mark to overturn the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, which had previously rejected Ferrari’s objection and allowed Sunrise-Mark’s trademark application last year.
Ferrari argued that the Sunrise-Mark trademark, which depicts 2 horses facing each other with a bold ‘W’ between them and the words ‘Wee Power’ below it, infringed on their exclusive rights to the single-horse logo used on their vehicles, merchandise and global branding.
The automotive company also tried to downplay Wee Power by claiming that the word ‘Power’ had already been disclaimed in the trademark registration, while ‘Wee’ was too general to be considered unique.
The court disagreed with this on the grounds that the only similarity between the 2 logos was the horse.
“The plaintiff’s mark is a device mark with a standing horse, while the defendant’s mark contains 2 standing horses facing each other. The defendant’s mark does not only focus on the standing horse because it contains the capital letter ‘W’ between the heads of the 2 horses and the words ‘WEE POWER’ below the horses,”
“I accept the defendant’s explanation that the word ‘WEE’ is derived from the name of the defendant’s founder, Wee Juan Chien, and does not refer to the ordinary meaning of the word ‘Wee’ in English. I find it unlikely that the defendant intended to brand its energy drink with a word meaning ‘very small’ or ‘very early’,” Judge Adlin Abdul Majid said.
With that, the court found that there were no reasonable possibilities that someone purchasing the energy drink would confuse it with Ferrari vehicles.
“The plaintiff and the defendant are involved in different industries, with the plaintiff in the luxury automotive industry while the defendant deals in consumer goods. The 2 types of products are not in competition with each other, and the plaintiff’s customers and the defendant’s customers are unlikely to overlap,”
“I find it unlikely that the average consumer would see the defendant’s mark and form the impression that it is similar to the plaintiff’s mark,” he added.
The court ultimately threw out the case and ordered the car manufacturer to pay for the court costs.
What do you think about this? Do feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section.
