Suria KLCC lost its suit in the Kota Kinabalu High Court yesterday over the similarity of the name and logo used by Suria Sabah.

Suria KLCC had sought damages and an injunction to stop Makamewah Sdn Bhd, which owns Suria Sabah, from using the name ‘Suria’ and the swirly logo depicting the sun.

Suria Sabah is part of stated-owned corporation Suria Capital.    

suria klcc 051105 Judicial Commissioner Stephen Chung held that Suria KLCC - located below the iconic Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur - failed to prove that Makamewah’s action amounts to misrepresentation in the course of trade.

Any such misrepresentation, he ruled, must be calculated to injure the business, goodwill and reputation of Suria KLCC and cause actual damage to its business.

The court further held that Suria KLCC (right) does not have an exclusive use of the word or name ‘Suria’ - Sanskrit for ‘the sun’ - because this is a common name and not an inventive word.

Suria KLCC, represented by Roger Chin and Jacqueline Lee, filed the suit last year. Makamewah was represented by Douglas Primus and Shireen Leandra Sikayun.

In the affidavit-in-support dated May 7, 2008, Suria KLCC (the plaintiff) claimed that it found Makamewah (the defendant) had started development and construction of a commercial complex in Kota Kinabalu.

NONE The project was advertised, promoted, leased and managed by the defendant, using the name ‘Suria Sabah’ and/or a ‘swirl device’.

The plaintiff claimed that these trade marks are identical to, or nearly resembling, its own. Hence, this could cause confusion and deception in the course of trade.    

The trial started on March 15 with both sides calling four witnesses each.

'No possibility of confusion'

In his 10-page judgment, Chung held that the word is a generic word that is used commonly as a name for businesses in Malaysia.

He cited the example of such names as Suria FM for a radio station, Suria Beach Resort Pangkor, Suria Beach Resort and Suria Cherating Beach Resort.

He said the protection given under registration are for the use of the words ‘Suria’ and ‘KLCC’ when they are used together to identify the plaintiff’s trade name or business and also when they are used together with the swirl device as a distinctive mark.

“The evidence showed that the plaintiff is also managing two other shopping malls known as Alamanda Shopping Centre in Putrajaya and Mesra in Terengganu,” noted Chung.

“It is pertinent to note that these shopping malls are not known as Suria Putrajaya or Suria Terengganu (and do not) use the word ‘Suria’ as part of their name.

Making a comparison between Suria KLCC and Suria Sabah, the court pointed out that both are very different.

Suria KLCC carries luxury and expensive brands catering to high-end shoppers who can afford these goods. Suria Sabah carries goods and brands which cater to the ordinary shopper.

The geography and location of the two malls, and the distance between them, mean that the public would not be deceived or confused, Chung added.