Universiti Malaya sues its students for trademark infringement?

Transcript (English):

The University of Malaya is planning to take a student group to court—but not for what you’d expect. Usually, when a university wants to stop student activism, they use AUKU, but that causes a PR nightmare. Instead, UM is trying something more 'sophisticated’, something that has never been seen in the history of this country.

On 6 March 2026, UM issued a Cease and Desist and a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) to Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya, a student group based in UM. The letter relies on a claim of Trademark Infringement and Passing Off against the use of Universiti Malaya in Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya, demanding the President sign the LOU within 7 days. The ultimatum? Sign and admit liability, or UM takes the matter to court.

To win trademark infringement, UM has to clear several hurdles. First, they have to prove the name was used without consent—which is technically true here since the society isn't registered with UM. Then, they have to prove it was used in the 'course of trade.' Now, 'trade' is defined very broadly in law; even non-profit NGOs can fall under this.

Next, are the marks identical or similar? Arguably yes because there is an overlap with the name 'Universiti Malaya'. Are both providing the same class of goods or services? UM’s Class 41 registration covers 'education.' UM may argue that Liga is also educating and advocating. But here’s the reality check: Would any of you actually go to Liga Mahasiswa if you wanted to register as a student at UM? Probably not.

This brings us to the Likelihood of Confusion. We can look at Side-by-Side Comparison—do you think they look the same? But the more common test is 'Imperfect Recollection.' Think about both marks. If you walk away and try to remember them later, are you actually going to confuse Liga’s logo for the University’s mark? In my view, it’s unlikely.

In case UM proves their points, Liga has some defences to consider, but frankly speaking, they are weak.

First, they can argue 'Good Faith' use—claiming that since they are based in the university, it’s only natural to use 'Universiti Malaya' as their 'place of business.' But here’s the catch: Courts usually define 'place of business' as a geographical location, like a city or a town. You can’t trademark 'KL' or 'Ipoh' because they are locations—but UM did manage to register 'UM' as a trademark. Whether the court will accept a specific university campus as a 'geographical location' is in doubt.

Secondly, what about the 'Non-Commercial Purpose' defence since Liga Mahasiswa is not making money out of this? On paper, it sounds perfect for a non-profit NGO. But in reality, this defence does not work well. Why? Because the court treats 'in the course of trade' and 'commercial purpose' as nearly the same thing. Since 'trade' is interpreted so widely, almost any organised activity—even a non-profit one—can be considered as commercial purpose.

If UM uses AUKU, the public screams 'Oppression!' If they label it 'brand identity', they hope we stay quiet.  Some might ask: 'Why doesn’t Liga Mahasiswa just register with UM?' But when UM says your values aren't 'aligned' with theirs, registration doesn't matter. They can still use a C&D to stop you from using the name.

This time, I stand with Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya. If the administration can weaponize trademark law to go against one group today, they can go against any student group tomorrow.

中文翻译（AI 翻译）：

马来亚大学（UM）正计划将一个学生团体告上法庭——但原因可能出乎你的意料。通常，当一所大学想要阻止学生行动主义时，他们会使用《大学及大学学院法令》（AUKU），但这样做会引发严重的公关危机。相反，UM 这次似乎采取了一种更加“高明”的方式——一种在我国历史上前所未见的做法。

2026年3月6日，UM 向一个设于 UM 内的学生团体 Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya 发出了《停止与终止通知书》（Cease and Desist）以及《承诺书》（Letter of Undertaking，LOU）。这封信以商标侵权（Trademark Infringement）及假冒（Passing Off）为依据，针对 Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya 使用“Universiti Malaya”这一名称提出指控，并要求该团体主席在7天内签署 LOU。最后通牒是什么？签署并承认责任，否则 UM 就会将案件告上法庭。

要证明商标侵权，UM 必须跨过几个门槛。首先，他们必须证明该名称是在未经同意的情况下使用——这一点从技术层面来说确实成立，因为这个学生团体并没有在 UM 注册。接下来，他们必须证明该名称是在“商业活动过程中”（in the course of trade）被使用。

而法律对“trade”的定义其实非常广泛——即使是非营利组织，也可能落入这个范围。

接下来，要看双方的商标是否相同或相似？这一点可以争论说是相似的，因为双方的名称都包含“Universiti Malaya”。双方提供的是相同类别的商品或服务吗？UM 的第41类注册涵盖“教育”（education）。UM 可能会主张，Liga 同样提供教育及倡导活动。但我们现实一点：如果你想要申请成为 UM 的学生，你真的会去找 Liga Mahasiswa 报名吗？大概不会，对吧？

这就带我们来到混淆可能性（Likelihood of Confusion）的问题。

我们可以先看看两者的标志放在一起比较——你觉得它们看起来一样吗？但更常见的测试是“不完全记忆”（Imperfect Recollection）。

想象一下这两个标志。如果你离开之后，过了一段时间再回想，你真的会把 Liga 的标志误认为是大学的商标吗？在我看来，可能性不高。

假设 UM 成功证明了上述几个要点，Liga 仍然可以考虑一些抗辩，但坦白说，这些抗辩并不强。

首先，他们可以主张以善意（Good Faith）使用该名称——他们可以说，因为他们本身就在这所大学内活动，所以使用“Universiti Malaya”作为他们的“营业地点”（place of business）是很自然的。

但问题来了：法院通常会把“营业地点”解释为一个地理位置，例如城市或城镇。你不能把“KL”或“Ipoh”注册成商标，因为这些都是地理名称——但 UM 确实成功把“UM”注册为商标。法院会不会接受一个特定的大学校园也属于“地理位置”？这就存在疑问了。

其次，“非商业用途”（Non-Commercial Purpose）的抗辩又如何呢？毕竟 Liga Mahasiswa 并没有从中赚钱。从表面上看，这似乎非常适合一个非营利组织。

但现实是，这个抗辩并不那么好用。

为什么？因为法院对于“in the course of trade”和“commercial purpose”的理解，在实际运作上非常接近。由于“trade”的解释非常广泛，几乎任何有组织的活动——即使是非营利性质的活动——都有可能被视为具有商业目的。

如果 UM 使用 AUKU，公众会大喊“这是压迫！”但如果他们把它包装成“品牌身份保护”，他们希望我们保持沉默。

有人可能会问：“Liga Mahasiswa 为什么不直接向 UM 注册？”但当 UM 说你的价值观与他们的价值观“不一致”时，注册与否其实并不能解决问题。他们仍然可以通过发出 C&D，要求你停止使用这个名称。

这一次，我站在 Liga Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya 这一边。如果大学行政当局今天可以利用商标法对付一个学生团体，那么明天，他们就可以对付任何一个学生团体。