第1节反映出古今中外人类同样的基本欲求(yearnings):祈求神明赐福与保护 (prayer for blessings)。第1节这么说:”愿 神怜悯我们,赐福与我们,用脸光照我们。”神的“脸”或“光”表示他的”荣耀”(glory,kabod)。而“用脸光照我们”又是什么意思?旧约教授Gerald H. Wilson 说在整卷《诗篇》中,说到神用他的脸光照我们时, 是暗指“神临在时那种令人感到神秘敬畏的荣耀” (the shining of God’s face alludes to the numinous splendor attached to this presence in all his ‘glory’ (kabod))。 他也说在整卷《诗篇》中,提到神的“脸” 或“光” 照我们时 (the shining of God’s face or light),是表示神即将拯救我们(参The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan, 2002,页927)。
《提摩太后书》是保罗写给他的年轻门生提摩太的一封书信。这封信情词恳切,亲昵。他把提摩太称为”亲爱的儿子“ (1章2节),并说他昼夜为他祈祷,切切的想见他(1:4)。保罗说他是“照着在耶稣基督里生命的应许” (1章1节),写了这封劝勉鼓励的信给提摩太。保罗相信在耶稣里是有生命的;这也是神应许给信徒的。他进而提醒提摩太必须将神所赐的“恩赐” (gift)重新“如火挑旺起来” (重新烧旺也 – rekindle the gift of God),同时提醒他神所赐予他的不是胆怯的心,而是“刚强,仁爱,谨守的心” (1章6到7节)。和合本翻译为”心”,但在英文《圣经》用的字眼是spirit,有些解经家说这个spirit 应该是大写S的,即Spirit, 圣灵也。保罗说神所赐给我们的不是胆怯的灵,而是有能力,有爱与审慎的灵。如果我们参考英文的翻译,就更清楚: “…for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and love and of self-discipline”。保罗接着鼓励提摩太不要羞于给主耶稣做见证。很显然,他勉励提摩太不同害怕,相反的要放胆,但同时保持“审慎”的态度,传扬福音。再次让我们看到保罗是多么有智慧:他的教导一向来都是相当持平(balanced),不偏激的:一方面他劝导提摩太要有胆量,能力为主作见证,另一方面他也提醒提摩太要有“审慎”的态度。在为主传福音的工作上,必须要胆识能力,但勇敢不表示莽撞,胆量与审慎必须并行。
政府昨晚宣布MCO再次展延两个星期。可能对一些人是带来不便与更多的挑战。但让我们将不安的心沉静下来,继续留在家中,一起抗疫。也切切祈求神尽快遏制病毒的蔓延。这段时间多出来许多的时刻,是与神亲近,见证主爱的好契机。希望大家在家中有固定的读经、灵修、祷告与思想神的话,借着打电话、社交媒体来传福音。今天的经文提醒我们不要太过胆怯惧怕,相反的要培养心灵的能量,仁爱与谨守的心, 因为这是神给我们的。经文清楚告诉我们,神所给予我们的是”a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline”。这几样的心理素质在面对困境,挑战时,是不可缺少的。我个人也相信这些素质不只是天生的素质,更多是圣灵的“果子” (fruit of the Holy Spirit)。《使徒行传》第1章第8节是我们耳熟能详的:“当圣灵降临在你们身上,你们就必得着能力”,所以能力,尤其是传福音,活出主爱的能力是圣灵所赐的。另外一段经文,《加拉太书》第5章22节也是我们熟悉不过的:“圣灵所结的果子,就是仁爱,喜乐,和平,忍耐,恩慈,良善,信实,温柔,节制”。从这段经文我们看到,任爱,喜乐,和平,忍耐,恩慈等品格或属灵的素质也是圣灵产生的。保罗在《提摩太后书》第1章第7节提到的,刚好是《加拉太书》所提到的第一个与最后一个果子,即“仁爱”和“节制”。
刘长老传出来Celine Dion与Josh Groban 合唱的这首《The Prayer》是我第一次听到,印象深刻的是其中一句:”给我们信心,使我们能安全”(Give us faith so that we will be safe)。视频的华文字幕将safe翻译为“平安”;这也没错。我也有点怀疑英文原文的用词当是“saved”?Saved 有得救的意思。无论如何,“平安”,“安全”,“得救”都是属于同一个范畴的词汇,是好事,是凶恶事情的反面。以上《马可福音》中耶稣的话,告诉了我们的是对耶稣的信心救了哪个患疾病的女人,提醒我们在充满许多未知数的境况下,唯有对耶稣的信心能救我们。上个星期吧,读到一则新闻:一个被怀疑患上新冠肺炎的中年人,因为有一些症状,在沙登( Serdang) 医院做了检验,留院观察;在等待检验报告出炉,一时想不开自杀了。但反讽的是,检验报告出来发现他其实并没有受感染。他的过世,实在令人扼腕叹息。
Photo taken after the handing down of the decision on 20 January 2020. To my left is Mr Wong Chee Wai, the instructing solicitor and to my right is my associate, Mr Eugene Ee.
On 20 January 2020, the Court of Appeal in SkyWorld Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Skyworld Holdings Bhd & 5 Ors (Civil Appeal No.: W-02(IPCv)(W)-383-02/2019) unanimously ruled, among others, that an action for infringement can be founded upon the unauthorised use of a registered mark as part of a trade or company name.
Background
The Appellants, SkyWorld Development Sdn Bhd and its related company, are renowned property developers in Malaysia. The 1st Appellant is the registered proprietor of three stylised trademarks consisting of the word “SkyWorld” together with accompanying tag-lines (“SkyWorld Marks”) as shown below. The word “SkyWorld” also forms part of the Appellants’ company name and the name of their property development projects.
Sometime in 2017, the Appellants discovered that the Respondents had used the words “Sky World” or “Skyworld” as part of their company names, domain name and the name of their proposed theme park project in Karambunai, Sabah. After failed attempts to resolve the issue, a civil action was brought against the Respondents for trademark infringement, passing off and unlawful interference with trade.
At the High Court, the Appellants’ claims were dismissed on, among others, the grounds that (i) the Appellants do not have monopoly over the word “SkyWorld” as the SkyWorld Marks are not registered as word marks; (ii) the competing marks are visually different as the Respondents’ use of the word “skyworld” was either wholly in uppercase or lowercase but not in mixed uppercase as in the SkyWorld Marks; and (iii) the parties are not engaged in the same trade.
The crux of the appeal rests on the issue of whether an action for infringement could be instituted for the use of a registered mark as part of a trade or company name. While there have been previous cases in Malaysia of similar nature, such actions were premised on the tort of passing off rather than trademark infringement.
Court of Appeal’s decision
At the outset, the Court found it useful to distinguish the functions of a trademark, trade name and domain name as follows:
a trademark serves as the source identifier of a product or service in the marketplace;
a trade name is used to identify the business offering the said product or service; and
a domain name is the online identity of the business and is usually the same or similar to the trademark as part of the branding strategy.
Given the dearth of Malaysian cases on the issue, the Court turned to precedents from other common law jurisdictions and the European Court of Justice as reference in deciding that an action for infringement could indeed be founded upon the unauthorised use of a registered mark as part of a trade or company name. The Court was also persuaded by the recent amendment to Section 10(4) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 which expanded the scope of use of a sign to include use as a trade or company name.
SkyWorld Property Gallery
The Court ventured further in clarifying the applicable tests in an infringement action. First, there should not be a microscopic comparison of the minute differences between the competing marks in deciding the likelihood of confusion. Thus, whether the infringing mark was used in uppercase or lowercase was immaterial.
Second, the trial judge had erred by enquiring whether the parties are in the same business. Instead, according to the Court of Appeal, the correct approach in deciding whether there is trademark infringement is to first enquire whether the Respondents’ use of the infringing marks came within the specification of services covered by the registration of the SkyWorld Marks. In this respect the Court opined that the words in a specification of services should be given their natural and ordinary meanings. Thus, the registered services of the SkyWorld Marks, namely “real estate development”, “property development”, and “building and construction of real property” would encompass the Respondents’ proposed theme park development. A clear case of infringement has thus been established.
Comments
We believe this is the first appellate decision which lays down the proposition that a registered mark could be infringed through the use of a registered mark or an essential part of it as a trade or corporate name. The grounds of judgment contain clear exposition on the tests to be applied when dealing with the issue of trademark infringement, passing off and unlawful interference with trade. It is novel and noteworthy that among the relief granted by the Court is an order directing the Respondents, including the directors, to publish apology notices in three national dailies to express their regret over the infringing acts.
In light of this decision, it is advisable for prospective business owners to conduct proper due diligence before deciding on their business name. Simple and cost-effective measures such as conducting a name search at the business or company registry, a domain name search or at the very least a search on Google may avert any unnecessary legal proceedings that may result in the cancellation of the business name, the publication of apology notices to the public, the changing of marketing materials and the loss of any goodwill built under the infringing name.
Mr Wong Chee Wai, Mr Eugene Ee and I acted as counsel for SkyWorld at the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Write-up contributed by Teo Bong Kwang and Eugene Ee