Enforcement of Law on the Issue of Sale of Counterfeit Goods: A Comparison between Malaysia and United Kingdom
(Penguatkuasaan Undang-undang dalam Isu Penjualan Barang Tiruan: Perbandingan antara Malaysia dengan United Kingdom)
Abstract
The sale of counterfeit goods is an illegal act in which dealers place original manufacturer trademarks on non-genuine goods. This offense is often brought to the court under the Copyright Act 1987, the Trade Marks Act 1976, and the Trade Descriptions Act. However, despite having all sorts of enforcement of laws to ensure that this offense is eradicated, there are still countless cases of sales of counterfeit goods that are detrimental to society. This study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the existing legal frameworks and the standard operating procedure in Malaysia that governs this issue. Through this study, specific legal frameworks were identified to prevent the reoccurrence of this offense. The differences in the enforcement of law between Malaysia and the United Kingdom as well as suggestions for improvement were also discussed in this article. The result found that existing legal enforcement is effective enough. However, if the enforcement were to be further improved, such as by creating a comprehensive act and emulating a settlement system in the United Kingdom that offers the most appropriate advice and solution to complainants online, this effort can certainly reduce the number of cases of counterfeit goods sold in Malaysia more effectively.
References
Akta Hak Cipta 1987.
Akta Jualan Barangan 1957.
Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011.
Akta Perlindungan Pengguna 1999.
Agarwal, S. P., S. (2016). Consumer Orientation Towards Counterfeit Fashion Products: A Qualitative Analysis. The IUP Journal of Brand Management XIII (56).
Chaudhry, P. E., & Cesareo, L. (2017). Fake and pirated: Do consumers care? Journal of Business Strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(6), 11-19.
Clunas, Craig. (1991). Superfluous things: Material culture and social status in early modern China. University of Illinois Press.
Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., & Shultz, C. J. (2006). The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 5(3), 245-256.
George W. Abbott, L. S. S. (1999). Trademark counterfeiting. Aspen Law & Business.
Hew Chai Seng (t/a Pertiland Trading Co) v Metronic Integrated System Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 7 MLJ 1
Jasmine Food Corporation Sdn Bhd v Leong Wai Choon & Anor [2016] 5 CLJ 953
Johnson v Johnson, Re [1997] MLJU 328
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 305
Konvensyen Berne 1986
Konvensyen Paris dan Perlindungan Hak Perindustrian 1983.
Mackey, T. K., & Liang, B. A. (2011). The global counterfeit drug trade: Patient safety and public health risks. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 100(11), 4571-4579.
Montres Rolex S.A. v Ricardo de AG (2005) 37 IIC 573
Nurazreen, M. A. (2011). Cabaran dan kaedah dalam meningkatkan prestasi kerja pegawai penguatkuasa KPDNKK masa kini (Disertasi Doktor Falsafah tidak diterbitkan). Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Perjanjian Vienna (Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks) 1973.
Protokol Madrid 1892
Sonmez, M., Yang, D., & Fryxell, G. (2013). Interactive role of consumer discrimination and branding against counterfeiting: A study of multinational managers' perception of global brands in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), 195-211.
Tan Kim Hock Product Centre Sdn Bhd & Anor V Tan Kim Hock Tong Seng Food Industry Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 1
TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) 1994.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 1974.
World Trade Organization (WTO) 1994.
