Refused at first. Registered in the end.

When the Trademark Office refuses a trademark, the reasons can be answered. Here is how we answered them, case by case.

Every appeal Cathca has taken to a decision since 2023 has been won, a 100% success rate to date.

Talk to us on WhatsApp Compare packages →

100%appeal success since 2023

28 appeals on our record at the Trademark Office, all won

18 appeals still with the Trademark Office

From the Trademark Office's records of Cathca's appeals, October 2026. An appeal here is a written appeal or hearing request filed with the Trademark Office against its refusal. A brand that appealed in several classes appears once below.

CATHCACase file · Class 43 · Café

Not every refusal needs an appeal.

The officer refused this café's mark over the word Nanyang. We asked for the refusal to be reviewed at a senior level instead of appealing.

Accepted on 2 September 2025 and registered that November.

A rare route. Most refusals still need a written appeal, and we tell you which route fits before you file. This case is not counted in the appeal figures above.

Months from refusal to the Trademark Office's decision

From the Trademark Office's records: this café's refusal, and the 26 written appeals we filed and won since 2023.

CATHCACase file · Class 30 · Food

Not every refusal needs an appeal.

The mark includes the year 1955, and the officer refused it until the business proved it had run since then.

We compiled the evidence of use and prepared a statutory declaration for our client to affirm before a Commissioner for Oaths.

Accepted on 14 November 2024 and registered in January 2025.

Most refusals still need a written appeal, and we tell you which route fits before you file. This case is not counted in the appeal figures above.

Months from refusal to the Trademark Office's decision

From the Trademark Office's records: this food maker's refusal, and the 26 written appeals we filed and won since 2023.

Choose the refusal that matches your letter. Every case here was refused at first, then won.

Class 44 · Aesthetic medicine

An aesthetic clinic

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited an earlier mark sharing the same two letters, for medical information services.
How we answered: Cosmetic surgery and medical information are different services, and the marks share only two letters. We also filed the clinic's online reviews.

Published September 2026

Class 32 · Drinks

A drinks syrup maker

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name is common wording in the drinks trade and describes the product.
How we answered: The name is an invented word that says nothing about syrups or juices, and its letters are specially drawn. The law bars only marks made up entirely of descriptive words.

Published August 2026

Classes 16, 35 and 36 · Venue

A venue brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer asked for written permission from the State Government to use the word Penang.
How we answered: We prepared the formal request with our client's evidence of use, submitted it to the State Government and followed up with the State Secretary until the letter came, before the appeal deadline.

Registered July 2026, three classes

Class 43 · Café

A chocolate café

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited four earlier marks, for prepared foods, a convenience store and business services.
How we answered: Our client's name is a coined word with no meaning. The earlier marks sell food, while our client serves food and drinks at its kiosk.

Registered July 2026

Class 29 · Fish products

A fish products brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name describes the goods, because its first word means fish.
How we answered: Together the two words make a coined name found in no dictionary, so the mark as a whole does not describe the goods.

Registered July 2026

Class 44 · Physiotherapy, two marks

A physiotherapy centre

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name describes how the body moves and holds posture, and would accept the marks only if our client gave up its rights to the words.
How we answered: Customers do not read the name as a posture term, the phrase appears in no dictionary, and years of use had made it our client's own name.

Registered March and July 2026

Class 43 · Restaurant

A fried chicken kiosk

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited three earlier marks, for spices and for restaurant services.
How we answered: The marks look clearly different and are not sold side by side. Use across the client's kiosks had also made the mark familiar to its customers.

Registered May 2026

Class 41 · Music

A music business

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name describes the business, music.
How we answered: We showed the mark is distinctive in its wording and look, and filed a full set of our client's evidence of use.

Registered May 2026

Class 30 · Coffee

A coffee brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited an earlier mark with nearly the same name, registered for nutritional supplements in Class 5.
How we answered: Coffee and supplements serve different purposes, sell through different channels and are bought with different care. We showed that shoppers would not connect the two, so both marks can stand.

Registered May 2026

Classes 7 and 11 · Appliances

An appliance brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited a company in China that uses the same name but never registered it, in China or in Malaysia.
How we answered: Trademark rights stop at the border. An unregistered foreign name with no standing here should not block a Malaysian application, and our client has no link to that company.

Registered May 2026, both classes

Class 37 · Building and installation

A building services company

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited an earlier mark for air-conditioning installation.
How we answered: The earlier mark covers air-conditioning work only, while our client's services are much wider. The marks look different, and the name has been in use for decades.

Registered May 2026

Class 9 · Car audio

A car audio brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited an earlier mark for machine control and measuring equipment, and also our client's own pending application.
How we answered: We asked the officer to drop our client's own application from the citation. Car audio and industrial control equipment are different goods, and the two marks share only one word.

Registered April 2026

Class 3 · Skincare

A skincare brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the mark was not distinctive, and cited similar marks.
How we answered: We filed our client's evidence of use to show the mark had become distinctive in the market, and set out how it differs from each cited mark.

Registered March 2026

Class 43 · Restaurant

A western restaurant

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited five earlier marks sharing one word, for frozen meat and for drinks.
How we answered: A restaurant is a different business from packaged food and drinks, and our client's mark sets Chinese and English words in its own design.

Registered March 2026

Class 36 · Property

A property management platform

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited two earlier marks, for estate agency and for online selling services.
How we answered: The marks share only one word. Our client manages property and finances through its own software, a different service from estate agency or online selling, and we filed its record of use.

Registered February 2026

Class 19 · Flooring

A flooring brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited an earlier mark made of the same three letters, for business and trading services.
How we answered: Floor panels are goods bought by homeowners and contractors, while the earlier mark covers business services. The two logos also look nothing alike.

Registered February 2026

Class 43 · Restaurant

A noodle restaurant

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited a long list of marks that share the same two words.
How we answered: Many marks with those words had already been accepted and registered, so refusing this one for the same words did not hold. We also showed how different our client's mark looks as a whole.

Registered April 2025

Class 43 · Restaurant

A Thai restaurant

Why the officer refused it: The officer was ready to accept the mark, but only if our client gave up exclusive rights to the words in its name.
How we answered: We showed the first word has nothing to do with restaurants and the name as a whole is invented. The officer accepted the narrower disclaimer we proposed, word for word.

Registered January 2025

Class 43 · Restaurant

A Nyonya restaurant

Why the officer refused it: The officer cited two earlier marks, one for noodles and one for selling snacks online.
How we answered: Running a restaurant is a different business from selling raw noodles or snacks online. We also showed how different the mark's lettering looks, and filed years of the restaurant's use.

Registered January 2025

Class 44 · Beauty therapy

A beauty centre

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the mark was not distinctive, and cited a similar mark.
How we answered: The name is an invented word, distinctive in its own right. The cited mark also sits in a different class.

Registered January 2025

Class 43 · Pet boarding

A cat hotel

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name sounds like the Malay word for cat, and cited earlier marks for pet food and business services.
How we answered: The spelling sets the name apart, and customers would not read it as a description of a pet hotel. Boarding cats is also unrelated to selling pet food.

Registered September 2024

Class 29 · Meat and seafood

A meat and seafood brand

Why the officer refused it: The officer said the name was not distinctive and that it described how the food is made.
How we answered: We argued the name must be judged as a whole, not split into its two words, and that it is not a common expression for these goods.

Registered September 2024

My letter mentions another brand. What happens next?

We look at both names and the products or services involved. In one coffee case, we explained how coffee differed from nutritional supplements. Your case may need a different response, so we’ll first read your full letter and application history.

What documents will I need?

We’ll read your letter first, then explain which records could help your case.

How we can help with an appeal

How an appeal runs with us

Read the decision and assess the grounds, case history and applicable response steps.
Prepare the agreed submissions and organise supporting evidence.
Follow up on the appeal and explain any conditions or further decisions.

Past results do not promise the next one. Every refusal turns on its own facts, so we read yours before we recommend an appeal.

Appeal support is included in the RM3,500 Peace of Mind package. It is not included in the RM3,000 Best Value package.

Compare packages →

Got a refusal letter?

Tell us briefly about your refusal letter. We’ll explain the next step and how to share your documents.

Talk to us on WhatsApp

Prefer a form? Send an enquiry.