Malaysia – Intellectual Property Legal Protection In The Digital Era
The article argues that Malaysia already has a solid intellectual property framework, but the digital environment has changed the nature of infringement. It says infringement is now continuous, cross border, and often anonymous, so legal protection must be applied with a more practical, digital first mindset.
For trademarks, it points to the Trademarks Act 2019 and explains that infringement generally turns on using an identical or similar sign for identical or similar goods or services where confusion is likely. It also highlights Section 102 as an important shield for intermediaries, limiting damages or account of profits for non primary infringers who can show innocent use and lack of reason to believe there was infringement, supporting the idea of platforms acting as neutral intermediaries.
For copyright, it stresses how the Copyright Act 1987 has been updated for modern piracy risks, especially via the Copyright Amendment Act 2022. It highlights provisions aimed at facilitators, including criminalising the making and sale of streaming technology intended for infringement, and addressing sharing access to online locations containing pirated works. It then explains online service provider safe harbour protections and the notice and takedown process, warning that immunity can fall away if a provider has actual knowledge or gains direct financial benefit from infringement.
On enforcement, it describes how major platforms offer IP complaint tools that can remove infringing listings quickly without immediate court action, but says these systems are inherently reactive. It notes the whack a mole problem where listings return under new accounts, and adds that counter notice procedures can force rights holders into formal legal action within a short window of about ten to fourteen days.
The article also cites a Malaysian High Court decision involving Shopee, where the court refused to order broad pre screening or blocking of listings, treating the platform as an intermediary rather than the seller. It says the court expected rights holders to identify specific listings and use targeted, evidence based takedowns rather than seek blanket injunctions against a marketplace.
It concludes that stronger and clearer obligations may be needed for platforms, especially around repeat offenders and identity verification, while rights holders should combine registration, contractual protection, digital monitoring, evidence preservation, and strategic litigation when needed.
