Latest news with #FerrariSpA
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Ferrari loses trademark suit in Malaysia over local energy drink's ‘Wee Power' horse logo
KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — Ferrari SpA (Ferrari) has lost a trademark dispute against local energy drink brand Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd after the High Court ruled that the latter's 'Wee Power' logo was not confusingly similar to Ferrari's iconic 'Prancing Horse' emblem. In a judgment dated May 30, Judge Adlin Abdul Majid dismissed Ferrari's challenge to block Sunrise-Mark's trademark registration, stating that the Italian carmaker's claims of potential confusion were unfounded, according to a report published in the New Straits Times today. Ferrari had sought to overturn a decision by the Registrar of Trademarks which dismissed its opposition and allowed Sunrise-Mark's application for the 'Wee Power' trademark, featuring two rearing horses, a large 'W', and the words 'Wee Power'. 'The plaintiff's mark is a device mark with one rearing horse while the defendant's mark contains two rearing horses facing each other,' said Adlin, who found that the marks were visually and conceptually distinct. She also accepted Sunrise-Mark's explanation that the word 'Wee' was derived from its founder's name, Wee Juan Chien, and not a reference to the English word meaning 'very small'. Ferrari had argued that 'Wee' was generic and that 'Power' had been disclaimed in the registration, but the judge disagreed and found no evidence of an intent to mimic the Italian brand. She further noted that the two companies operate in entirely different sectors — luxury vehicles versus consumable energy drinks — with no reasonable likelihood of customer confusion. 'It is unlikely that the average consumer would see the defendant's mark and form the impression that it is similar to the plaintiff's mark,' she added. The court ordered Ferrari to pay costs, with PC Kok and Ng Pau Chze representing the carmaker, and YY Ho and Amirah Najihah Ameruddin appearing for Sunrise-Mark.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Automotive
- The Sun
Ferrari loses trademark case against local energy drink firm
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.
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- Automotive
- New Straits Times
Ferrari loses 'Prancing Horse' logo suit to local drink brand
KUALA LUMPUR: Italian supercar icon Ferrari SpA (Ferrari), renowned for its 'Prancing Horse' emblem, has lost a trademark courtroom battle to a local energy drink company over a pair of rearing horses. The High Court dismissed Ferrari's legal action against Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd, ruling that the latter's "Wee Power" logo was not confusingly similar to Ferrari's world-famous trademark and could proceed to registration. Judge Adlin Abdul Majid made it clear that Ferrari's claims of potential confusion did not hold water. Ferrari as plaintiff filed the originating summons against Sunrise-Mark to set aside the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, of dismissing its opposition and allowing the latter's trademark application last year. Ferrari had argued that Sunrise-Mark's trademark, which features two rearing horses facing each other with a bold letter W between them and the words "Wee Power" below, infringed on its exclusive rights to the iconic single rearing horse used on its cars, merchandise, and global branding. Ferrari also tried to play down the words "Wee Power" by arguing that the term "Power" was disclaimed in the trademark registration, and that the word "Wee" was too generic to be considered unique. However, the court in its decision dated May 30 disagreed with the plaintiff on grounds that the only similarity between the marks is the horses. "The plaintiff's mark is a device mark with one rearing horse while the defendant's (Sunrise-Mark) mark contains two rearing horses facing each other. "The defendant's mark does not focus only on the rearing horses as it contains a large letter "W" between the heads of the two 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 definition of the word "wee" in the English language. "I find it unlikely that the defendant had intended for its energy drinks to be branded with words that mean 'very small power' or 'very early power'," she said. Adlin said the court found no reasonable likelihood that someone shopping for an energy drink would confuse it with Ferrari's luxury vehicles. "The plaintiff and the defendant are involved in different industries, with the plaintiff in the luxury automotive industry while the defendant traded in consumable goods. "Both types of products do not compete 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," she added. The court also ordered the carmaker to pay costs.
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- Automotive
- New Straits Times
Ferrari loses horse logo suit to local drink brand
KUALA LUMPUR: Italian supercar icon Ferrari SpA (Ferrari), renowned for its prancing horse emblem, has lost a trademark courtroom battle to a local energy drink company over a pair of rearing horses. The High Court dismissed Ferrari's legal action against Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd, ruling that the latter's "Wee Power" logo was not confusingly similar to Ferrari's world-famous mark and could proceed to registration. Judge Adlin Abdul Majid made it clear that Ferrari's claims of potential confusion did not hold water. Ferrari as plaintiff filed the originating summons against Sunrise-Mark to set aside the decision of the Registrar of Trademarks, of dismissing its opposition and allowing the latter's trademark application last year. Ferrari had argued that Sunrise-Mark's trademark, which features two rearing horses facing each other with a bold letter W between them and the words "Wee Power" below, infringed on its exclusive rights to the iconic single rearing horse used on its cars, merchandise, and global branding. Ferrari also tried to play down the words "Wee Power" by arguing that the term "Power" was disclaimed in the trademark registration, and that the word "Wee" was too generic to be considered unique. However, the court in its decision dated May 30 disagreed with the plaintiff on grounds that the only similarity between the marks is the horses. "The plaintiff's mark is a device mark with one rearing horse while the defendant's (Sunrise-Mark) mark contains two rearing horses facing each other. "The defendant's mark does not focus only on the rearing horses as it contains a large letter "W" between the heads of the two 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 definition of the word "wee" in the English language. "I find it unlikely that the defendant had intended for its energy drinks to be branded with words that mean 'very small power' or 'very early power'," she said. Adlin said the court found no reasonable likelihood that someone shopping for an energy drink would confuse it with Ferrari's luxury vehicles. "The plaintiff and the defendant are involved in different industries, with the plaintiff in the luxury automotive industry while the defendant traded in consumable goods. "Both types of products do not compete 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," she added. The court also ordered the carmaker to pay costs.
