PETALING JAYA: Italian high-performance car icon Ferrari SpA, renowned for its Formula One success and legendary prancing horse emblem, has lost a court battle over a trademark case against a local energy drink company concerning a twin horse logo.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Ferrari’s legal action against Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd, ruling that the company’s WEE POWER logo is not confusingly similar to Ferrari’s famous trademark and can proceed with registration.
According to New Straits Times, High Court judge Adlin Abdul Majid clarified that Ferrari’s claims regarding potential confusion were unfounded.
Ferrari as plaintiff filed an originating summons against Sunrise-Mark to set aside the Trademark Registrar’s decision, which had rejected their objection and allowed the company’s trademark application last year.
Ferrari argued that Sunrise-Mark’s trademark, which displays two standing horses facing each other with a bold letter W between them and the words WEE POWER below, infringed on their exclusive rights to the single horse logo used on their cars, merchandise and global branding.
Ferrari also attempted to diminish the words WEE POWER by arguing that the term POWER was already disclaimed in the trademark registration, and the word WEE was too common to be considered unique.
However, the court in its decision dated May 30 disagreed with the plaintiff on grounds that the only similarity between both marks was the horse.
“The plaintiff’s mark is a device mark with a standing horse, while the defendant’s (Sunrise-Mark) mark contains two standing horses facing each other.
“The defendant’s mark is not solely focused on the standing horse as it contains a capital letter W between the heads of both horses and the words WEE POWER below the horses.
“I accept the defendant’s explanation that the word WEE derives from the defendant’s founder’s name, Wee Juan Chien, and does not refer to the common definition of the word wee in English.
“I find it unlikely that the defendant intended to brand their energy drink with words meaning ‘very small power’ or ‘very early power’,“ he was quoted as saying.
Adlin said the court found no reasonable likelihood that someone purchasing an energy drink would confuse it with a luxury Ferrari vehicle.
“The plaintiff and defendant are involved in different industries, with the plaintiff in the luxury automotive industry while the defendant deals in consumable goods.
“Both types of products do not compete with each other, and the plaintiff’s customers and defendant’s customers are unlikely to overlap.
“I find it unlikely that an ordinary consumer would look at the defendant’s mark and form the impression that it is similar to the plaintiff’s mark,“ he said.
The court also ordered the car manufacturer to pay court costs.
Lawyers PC Kok and Ng Pau Chze represented the plaintiff while YY Ho and Amirah Najihah Ameruddin represented the defendant.
