This is hilarious. I knew Vitagen was scummy for copying Yakult's bottle design and concept, but I didn't know they were quite this scummy to then try to sue Yakult for damages for misleading consumers when they were the infringers in the first place!


Malaysian Diary Industries Pte Ltd v Yakult (Singapore) Pte Ltd [HC,S'pore] (1978)

"The plaintiffs say that they have since April 1977, built up a substantial business in Singapore and Malaysia in their lactic acid drink ‘Vitagen’ and the development of the market has been fostered by a skilful and expensive marketing campaign...

In view of the evidence of E Fujimoto who designed the Yakult bottle and in view of the extensive advertising by Yakult Japan and by Hong Kong Yakult Co Ltd (Yakult Hong Kong) I find it surprising that the plaintiffs can claim that the design alleged to have been produced by AW Soon Cheong, the plant manager for MDI, and used for the Vitagen bottle, was the original design since even from the advertisements it appears to be the same as the Yakult design. It is inconceivable that Thio Keng Poon, the Managing Director of both MDI and MM, who has been interested in the manufacture and sale of milk-based beverages and has business interests in Hong Kong and contacts in Japan, was not aware of Yakult Hong Kong and that Yakult Japan and Yakult Hong Kong used the Yakult bottle in which to market their product. Yakult Japan sold their drinks in Japan in glass containers in the ‘60s and beginning in 1966 they began to go over to the Yakult bottles. Yakult Hong Kong used the Yakult bottle since 1971. It is likely that he was also aware that in August 1972, Yakult Japan brought their Yakult product in their Yakult bottle to Singapore to conduct a market research project in Singapore in order to ascertain whether the population in Singapore found the taste of the Yakult product palatable...

The plaintiffs also complain of the proposed use by the defendants on their containers of the reference to ‘THE ORIGINAL LB-CULTURED MILK DRINK’. The plaintiffs claim exclusive right to the letters ‘LB’. The plaintiffs say that they have used ‘LB’ to describe one of the flavours of their drink; that they have also used in their advertising the expression ‘LB Factor’ in order to denote the principal beneficial ingredient in their product; that ‘LB’ refers to ‘Lactobacillus’ which is a bacteria found in all ‘VITAGEN’ drinks and that ‘LB’ is their trademark. It is quite wrong for the plaintiffs to make a claim to such a right to prevent Yakult Singapore from describing the Yakult product as a product containing lacto bacilli. ‘LB’, meaning the lacto bacillus, is a principal beneficial ingredient in the drink. The letters ‘LB’ are used in a purely descriptive sense and I do not see how the plaintiffs can have any exclusive rights to such abbreviation."


Malaysia - Truly Asia!