Someone registered my brand as their trademark first. Can I get it cancelled?

A former distributor, an ex-partner or a stranger registers your brand before you do, then demands that you stop using it or pay for a licence. Registration gives them strong rights, but a registration obtained against someone else's earlier rights can be challenged.

The grounds for invalidation

Under section 47 of the Trademarks Act 2019, the court may declare a registration invalid on the application of an aggrieved person where:

• the mark was registered in breach of the absolute grounds in section 23, such as lack of distinctiveness or being deceptive (section 47(1));
• there was an earlier trademark under section 24(1) to (3), including a well-known mark (section 47(3)(a));
• there was an earlier right under section 24(4), such as an unregistered mark protected by passing off, or copyright (section 47(3)(b)); or
• the registration involved fraud or was obtained by misrepresentation (section 47(6)); the Registrar can also apply on this ground.

Where does "bad faith" fit?

People often describe these situations as bad-faith registrations: a distributor registering the supplier's brand, or someone copying a name they knew belonged to another. Depending on the facts, this may be argued as fraud or misrepresentation, as an earlier right through passing off, or under the well-known mark provisions. For well-known marks, the Act says the court should consider whether the user knew or had reason to know of the proprietor's mark (section 76(7)).

Have a question about your own situation? Ask on WhatsApp

Exceptions

• Consent: a challenge based on an earlier mark or right fails if its owner consented to the registration (section 47(4)).
• Honest concurrent use: where a mark was registered on that basis, it cannot be invalidated under section 47(3) unless the court finds there was no honest concurrent use (section 47(5)).
• Acquired distinctiveness: some absolute-ground objections fall away if the mark became distinctive through use after registration (section 47(2)).

The effect of invalidity

An invalid registration is treated as never made, to the extent of the invalidity, but transactions past and closed are not affected (section 47(8)). Invalidity can be partial (section 47(7)).

Evidence you will need

Proof of your earlier use and reputation: dated invoices, packaging, adverts, social media history, customer and supplier records. Where a distributor or partner was involved, the agreements and correspondence showing they knew the brand was yours. See passing off for proving goodwill.

Example

A Melaka kuih maker supplies a reseller for several years. The reseller registers the brand in its own name and tells the maker to stop. The maker applies to invalidate the registration on the basis of its earlier goodwill and the reseller's misrepresentation, relying on years of invoices and the supply arrangement.

Common mistakes

• Assuming the first to register always wins.
• Not keeping dated proof of early use.
• Agreeing in writing to the other side's registration.
• Waiting while the other party builds its own use.

When to speak to a lawyer

When someone else's registration of your brand is used against you. See IP and trademark disputes or contact us.

Frequently asked questions

Can I object before the mark is registered?

The Act provides an opposition procedure before the Registrar after an application is published. Once registered, challenges go to court.

What if the registration is also not being used?

You may combine invalidation with revocation for non-use.

Can I keep using my brand during the challenge?

Possibly, but there is a risk of an infringement claim. Take advice on the timing.

Sources & fact check

Legal points in this article were checked against the primary sources below. The law can change; this is general information, not legal advice.

1. Trademarks Act 2019 (Act 815), AGC Laws of Malaysia
2. Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), official portal
3. Rules of Court 2012 (P.U.(A) 205/2012), text published by the Malaysian Bar, including Orders 12, 13, 18, 19 and 93

Fact-checked on 17 Oct 2026