MALAYSIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dato’ Brian Law, Suaran Singh Sidhu, Woo Wai Teng and Nur Jannah Khairul Anuar, LAW Partnership
Court of Appeal decisions can be further appealed to the Federal Court. However, this would typically only happen where there are novel issues of law in the lawsuit. 11.2 Timeframes for Appealing Trial Court Decisions An appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal will need to be made within 30 days from the date of the High Court decision. The appeal process at the Court of Appeal can take up to a year from the date of the High Court decision. However, this can be reduced by filing a certificate of urgency at the Court of Appeal for an earlier hearing date. At this juncture, there are no reported Malaysian court decisions directly determining ownership, infringe - ment or registrability of AI-generated works under copyright or trade mark laws. MyIPO acknowledges that the existing IP framework may be “inadequate” to address challenges posed by AI, especially around ownership and rights of AI- generated works. To address these technological and legal gaps, MyIPO hosted a National Dialogue on Intellectual Property and AI in August 2025, bringing stakeholders (gov - ernment, legal experts, industry, academics) together to explore how IP policies can evolve in the AI era. Discussions touched on covering machine-generated works, AI’s role in designs and patent filing, and future legal reform. The National Artificial Intelligence Office (NAIO) was established under the Ministry of Digital in 2024, and is the central co-ordinating body for Malaysia’s AI strategy and governance. It has implemented the AI Technology Action Plan 2026–2030, which emphasis - es ethical and responsible AI development, among other things. While NAIO’s primary role is not directly to regulate intellectual property, its policy-making and governance efforts are highly relevant to how AI and IP issues might be regulated in the future. 12. Additional Considerations 12.1 Emerging Issues
At present, Malaysian IP law does not yet contain specific AI provisions, but NAIO’s strategic plans are intended to underpin future regulatory reforms that evolve with technological progress. 12.2 Trade Mark and Copyright Use on the Internet Trade Mark and Copyright Infringement via the Internet Recent amendments to the CA 1987 and the TMA 2019 have expanded the scope of infringement pro - ceedings to extend liability to secondary infringers (including internet service providers (ISPs)). While Section 43H of the CA 1987 expressly provides for a takedown mechanism (by way of notification) for electronic copies of works published on the internet, this is not mirrored in the TMA 2019. Nonetheless, there is a need to be cautious as “use” of a trade mark for purposes of infringement proceed - ings is broadly defined under the TMA 2019. Given this, it is important that sufficient takedown proce - dures and guidelines, as well as adequate screening and filter mechanisms are adopted by ISPs to reduce the possibility of being liable for infringement of these intellectual property rights. Use of Trade Mark on the Internet Regulation 6 of the Regulations states that in relation to the use of a sign or trade mark on the internet, the provisions provided in the TMA 2019 and the Regula - tions and the Joint Recommendation must be taken into account. Importance of Trade Mark Registration for Use on E-Commerce Platforms Several online marketplaces require a valid trade mark registration certificate to enable sellers to verify their status as brand owners, authorised sellers or to pro - vide evidence of selling authentic products on their platform. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, it is advisable for business owners to secure a valid trade mark registration before expanding their business to online platforms.
306 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook