A Trademark Is Not Yours Just Because You Built the Business
- ipgenn
- Dec 26, 2025
- 6 min read
This is one of the biggest misconceptions among entrepreneurs—especially founders who poured years of effort, money, and emotion into a brand. Many assume: “I created it, so it must be mine.”
In law, especially Intellectual Property law, that assumption can be dangerously wrong.
The Malaysian courts have seen many disputes like this. Some involve business partners. Some involve friends. And some, heartbreakingly, involve husband and wife.
A Real Malaysian Case: When Business, Marriage, and Trademarks Collide
This case, Adleesya Beauty Sdn Bhd & Anor v Khairunisa Nadia binti Karip [2024] CLJU 141, shows how a dispute on trademark ownership can affect both a business and a family.
In a real Malaysian dispute, a husband and wife ran a beauty products business together for more than ten years. They were married for 14 years, had five children, and built a brand that became commercially successful and well recognised in the market.
From the outside, it looked like a classic family-run success story.
But behind the scenes, there was a fatal flaw: no clear legal structure for who owned the Trademark, the packaging designs, and the branding assets.
Everything worked, until the marriage did not.
When the relationship broke down, the business partnership collapsed with it. What followed was not just a divorce, but a fierce legal battle over trademark ownership, brand control, and who had the right to continue using the name that both had helped build.
This dispute eventually escalated into court proceedings, with both sides seeking Injunctions—including Interim Injunctions—to stop the other from using the trademark while the case was ongoing.
Who Started the Brand — and Who Registered It?
In this case, the story began back in 2009. The couple, Syafa and Nadia started selling beauty products under the brand name “Adleesya”, a name lovingly created from their children’s names. It was personal. Emotional. Very much a family brand.
As sales grew, a sole proprietorship, Adleesya Beauty Enterprise, was set up to run the business. The sole proprietorship was registered under the wife’s name, Nadia.
Years later, the business evolved again. A private limited company, Adleesya Network Sdn Bhd, was incorporated to take over operations. Both husband and wife became directors. The husband, Syafa, held 80% of the shares, whereas the wife, Nadia held 20%.
The company Adleesya Network later went on to successfully register the “Adleesya” Trademark in its own name.
On paper, everything looked neat and professional.
That only lasted until the marriage and trust broke down.
When the Relationship Ended, the Dispute on Trademark Ownership Began
Once trust breaks down, legal documents stop being formalities and start becoming weapons.
While she was still a director, the wife took a decisive and controversial step. She registered a new business and began selling a similar beauty product under a brand name that looked and sounded confusingly close to the original Trademark.
From a legal standpoint, this was no longer a private disagreement. It raised serious IP and corporate governance issues.
Not long after, she resigned as a director and transferred her shares, leaving the husband with full control of the companies. The personal relationship had ended. The business war had begun.
The husband took the dispute to court. Among other things, the husband’s companies accused her of:
breaching her director’s duties,
committing passing off by trading on the brand’s reputation,
and engaging in fraudulent registration of trademarks.
They asked the Court for, among others, formal declarations of trademark ownership, monetary damages, Injunction, and most urgently, an Interim Injunction, to stop her from using the disputed trade mark while the case was ongoing.
She did not back down. She fought back aggressively.
In response, the wife also applied for her own injunctions, asking the Court to restrain the companies and the husband from using the brand that she claimed to have created. Her position was clear: she said she was the real force behind the business, the creator of the designs, the driver of the brand, and therefore the true owner of the Trademark.
What the Court was now facing was not just a question of business conduct, but two competing stories of ownership, each backed by legal filings and urgent applications for Interim Injunctions.
At this stage, the fight was no longer about who worked harder—it was about who had the stronger legal footing.
What Is an Injunction?
An injunction is a court order that can immediately stop someone from using a trademark or continuing harmful conduct.
Many business owners assume they must wait until the trial is over before they can stop infringement.
In trademark disputes, timing is everything. When a brand is being misused, waiting for a full trial, which can take years, may destroy the business long before a final judgment is reached.
That is why parties often apply for an Interim Injunction. An interim injunction is a temporary court order issued during a lawsuit, not at the end of it. Its purpose is simple: to freeze the infringement activities and prevent further damage while the Court decides who truly owns the trademark.
Why Did Both Sides Apply for Injunctions?
In this case, both sides applied for Interim Injunctions because control over the brand meant control over the business. Whoever succeeded in obtaining an interim injunction would gain an immediate commercial advantage, effectively deciding who could keep trading under the brand while the case dragged on.
This is why injunction applications often become the first and fiercest battlefield in trademark litigation.
If someone is harming your brand right now, waiting until the trial ends may be too late—early legal action can determine who survives the dispute.
The Legal Test for an Interim Injunction in Malaysia
Courts don’t hand out injunctions just because a party is angry, scared, or “feels” the other side is wrong. The judge has to be convinced that granting an Interim Injunction now is fair and necessary while the lawsuit is still ongoing.
In Malaysia, the leading authority often cited for the interim injunction approach is Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor bin Abdullah.
The 3 Questions in Granting an Interim Injunction
In considering an interim injunction application, the Court will carefully assess whether:
Is there a serious issue to be tried?
The Court checks whether your case is real and supported by evidence, not just a complaint with vibes.
Where does the balance of convenience lie?
In plain English: Which option causes less injustice?
The judge compares the practical harm if the injunction is granted versus if it’s refused.
Are damages an adequate remedy instead?
If money at the end of trial can realistically fix the harm, an interim injunction is less likely. If the damage is hard to undo, like brand confusion, loss of goodwill, or loss of market position, then damages may not be “enough.”
These aren’t boxes to tick casually. The Court weighs them carefully because an interim injunction can effectively decide who gets to keep trading under the trade mark while the dispute is still alive.
If your business relies on a brand, don’t wait until a crisis. It is better to prepare evidence early (registration records, brand usage proof, contracts, director resolutions) so you can move fast if an Interim Injunction becomes necessary.
In This Case, Both Parties Lost
In this dispute, the Court accepted that there were serious issues to be tried. There were real legal questions over trademark ownership, ownership of the designs, and whether passing off had taken place. This was not a weak or frivolous case on either side.
Yet despite that, the Court refused to grant an Interim Injunction to either party.
Why?
Because an injunction is not just a legal tool, it has real-world consequences.
The judge recognised that:
granting an Injunction would likely shut down one party’s business entirely,
both sides were still actively operating and earning a living,
the welfare of five children depended on both parents being able to continue working,
and any financial harm could, at least in theory, be compensated later through damages if one side eventually won.
In other words, even though there were genuine IP disputes to resolve, freezing one side out of the market immediately would have caused greater injustice than allowing both to continue temporarily.
This is a critical point many entrepreneurs miss: an Interim Injunction is not automatic, even when trademark rights are disputed. Courts look beyond legal arguments and consider practical, human, and economic impact.
What This Means for Your Business
If you are building a brand with partners, family members, or co-founders, don’t wait for a dispute to discover who really owns your trademark.
At LAWENCO | Advocates & Solicitors, we advise entrepreneurs and business owners on:
Trademark ownership structuring
Intellectual Property risk assessment
Injunction and Interim Injunction strategy
Dispute prevention before relationships break down
If you are unsure whether your brand is legally protected, or if a dispute is already brewing, early advice can make the difference between control and crisis.
Written by,
Registered Trademark, Patent and Design Agent
LL.B (HONS), CLP
Advocate & Solicitor
Disclaimer: The above information is merely for general sharing and does not constitute any legal advice. Readers are advised to seek individual advice from the professionals.
Comments