Can I cancel a competitor's trademark that they never use?

You want to launch a product under a name, but a search shows that a competitor registered something similar years ago and you have never seen it in the market. Or they have just sent you a demand letter based on that registration. A non-use revocation may clear the way.

The grounds in section 46

The court may revoke a registration, on an application by an aggrieved person, where:

1. within three years after the notification of registration was issued, the mark has not been put to genuine use in good faith in Malaysia, by the owner or with consent, for the registered goods or services, without proper reasons;
2. use has been suspended for an uninterrupted three years, without proper reasons;
3. because of the owner's acts or inactivity, the mark has become the common name in the trade for the product or service; or
4. because of the owner's use, the mark is liable to mislead the public, for example about nature, quality or origin.

Who is an "aggrieved person"?

Usually someone whose business is or may be affected by the registration staying on the register, such as a trader who wants to use a similar mark, or someone threatened with infringement proceedings. Explain your interest clearly in the application.

Resumed use and the three-month window

A registration will not be revoked for non-use if use began or resumed after the three-year period but before the application (section 46(2)). However, use that starts or resumes within the three months before the application is disregarded, unless preparations began before the owner knew an application might be made (section 46(3)). This matters if you write to the owner before filing.

Have a question about your own situation? Ask on WhatsApp

Partial revocation and the effective date

If the grounds exist for only some goods or services, revocation is limited to those (section 46(4)). The owner's rights are treated as having ended from the date of the application, or an earlier date if the court is satisfied the grounds existed then (section 46(5)).

Evidence of non-use

• Market searches: shops, online platforms, websites, social media.
• Investigator reports and test enquiries.
• Company records showing the owner's business activities.
• Trade directories and advertising archives.

The owner usually answers with evidence of use: invoices, packaging, advertising and sales figures in Malaysia.

Example

A Kuching food company is threatened by the owner of a similar mark registered in 2018 for sauces. Searches and an investigator's report show no sales in Malaysia since registration. The company files a revocation application and defends the infringement claim on the basis that the registration is liable to be revoked.

Common mistakes

• Warning the owner long before filing, giving time to resume use.
• Relying on one internet search as proof of non-use.
• Asking for revocation of all goods when non-use relates to only some.
• Forgetting that use with the owner's consent, such as by a licensee, counts.

When to speak to a lawyer

When a dormant registration blocks your brand, or is used against you. See IP and trademark disputes or contact us.

Frequently asked questions

Is revocation the same as invalidation?

No. Revocation deals with events after registration, such as non-use. Invalidation says the mark should never have been registered; see invalidating a registration.

Can revocation be raised in an infringement case?

Yes. It is often raised by counterclaim, and it also matters for groundless threats.

What are "proper reasons" for non-use?

Usually obstacles outside the owner's control, such as regulatory approval delays. Each case depends on its facts.

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