Junzhi Wang & Anor v T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co. Ltd

Appellant(s):

• Junzhi Wang
• Redbull Vitamin Drink Co., Ltd

Respondent(s): T.C Pharmaceutical Industries Co.,Ltd

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng

• The respondent, the global proprietor of "Red Bull" trademarks, successfully obtained a decision from a WIPO Administrative Panel for the transfer of several domain names registered by the first appellant, an employee of the second appellant.
• The appellants initiated an action in the High Court for unlawful interference with trade, seeking declarations that would effectively nullify the WIPO decision and allow them to retain the domain names.
• The High Court dismissed the appellants' claim and allowed the respondent’s counterclaim for abuse of legal process, finding the suit was a reactive measure to frustrate the WIPO decision; the appellants subsequently appealed.

• Whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to review or set aside a decision made by an international administrative panel under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
• Whether a forum-selection clause in a private registration agreement or the procedural rules of the UDRP could validly confer jurisdiction upon the Malaysian Courts where statutory requirements are not met.
• Whether the initiation of the suit constituted the tort of abuse of legal process if the dominant purpose was a collateral attempt to delay the implementation of the WIPO decision.

• The Court affirmed that the High Court lacks jurisdiction as the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 does not empower it to act as an appellate body over WIPO decisions, and private contracts cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court.
• The claim for unlawful interference with trade was dismissed because the appellants admitted to having no business in Malaysia and the respondent’s filing of a WIPO complaint was a lawful exercise of intellectual property rights.
• The Court upheld the finding of abuse of legal process, characterizing the suit as a "Trojan horse" filed for the collateral purpose of frustrating the domain transfer, and affirmed the award of general and exemplary damages.