Tuesday January 1, 2013
Group can use the name ‘Ken’ in projects, court rules
KUALA LUMPUR: A property development and construction group has won the right to use the name “Ken” in their projects, following a High Court decision here to stop another group of companies from using the mark.
High Court judge Justice Hanipah Farikullah made the order after hearing a full trial involving Ken Holdings Bhd, which had sued 11 companies that claimed to be part of a diversified business conglomerate called the Ken City Group of Companies.
Justice Hanipah’s decision was read out by her registrar in chambers before defence lawyer Maggie Khon and K.Y Chew, representing the plaintiffs, late Friday.
“The defendants are considering appealing against the court,” said their lead counsel Ken St James.
The court set Jan 18 to decide over costs to be paid by the defendants to Ken Holdings.
St James said a counter-claim filed by Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd, one of the companies named as defendants, was also dismissed.
Ken Holdings Bhd and its seven subsidiaries are collectively referred to as Ken Group.
The subsidiary companies are Ken Grouting Sdn Bhd, Ken Property Sdn Bhd, Khidmat Tulin Sdn Bhd, Ken Rimba Sdn Bhd, Ken Link Sdn Bhd, Ken-Chec Sdn Bhd and Ken TTDI Sdn Bhd.
The plaintiffs named, among the defendants, Sri Seltra Sdn Bhd, City Motors Sdn Bhd, Kenco Sdn Bhd, Kenco Properties Sdn Bhd, Kenco Construction Sdn Bhd and Kenco Development Sdn Bhd.
The others named were Ken Concrete Sdn Bhd, Ken City Development Sdn Bhd, Ken City Bidor Sdn Bhd, Ken City Ipoh Sdn Bhd and Ken City Penang Sdn Bhd.
Ken Group said its development projects all had the “Ken” prefix, such as Ken Damansara and Ken Bangsar.
The plaintiffs sought for a declaration that they had established goodwill in relation to the “Ken” mark in the property development and construction sector and are, thus, the common law proprietor.
The 11 defendants said they were part of the Ken City Group of Companies (Ken City Group), a diversified business conglomerate of over 40 companies.
They claimed the Ken City Group had substantially used the words “Ken City” and sought for a declaration that Ken Holdings is not the trademark proprietor of “Ken”’, which they said was a common word.