Just reposting a video. Can your business infringe a trademark?

A supplier sends you a promotional video. You share it on your company’s Facebook page to promote the products you sell. Could the branding in that video expose your business to trademark infringement, even if your products carry a different label?

Case: Maxcare Success Sdn Bhd v Motionquest Sdn Bhd
Court of Appeal | 29 January 2026

In this case, the Court of Appeal found that reposting promotional videos on a company’s Facebook page amounted to trademark infringement. The disputed branding did not have to appear on the products sold locally for the online use to attract liability.

What happened?

Maxcare owned the registered Maxoil trademark. Earlier litigation had resulted in the similar Maxxoil mark being removed from the trademark register.

Motionquest distributed the relevant lubricant products in Malaysia. Although manufactured overseas under the Maxxoil branding, the products were rebranded and sold locally as Maxx Performance.

Motionquest nevertheless reposted four videos containing the Maxxoil sign on its official Facebook page. It removed the videos after being served with the lawsuit.

The High Court dismissed Maxcare’s claim. On the trademark issue, it considered that reposting the videos was not use in the course of trade because Motionquest did not sell products bearing the disputed sign.

Why did the Court of Appeal find trademark infringement?

The Court of Appeal took a different view. The Facebook page existed to promote Motionquest’s products. Reposting promotional videos there was commercial use, even though the disputed sign did not appear on the packaging of goods sold in Malaysia.

The Trademarks Act 2019 recognises that use of a mark can include advertising and commercial documents. Trademark protection is therefore not confined to the physical label on a product.

The Court also considered Motionquest’s knowledge. The products had been rebranded for Malaysia because of the earlier dispute. That supported the finding that Motionquest had reason to believe it was not authorised to use the offending sign locally.

The Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded RM20,000 in costs. However, it declined to award damages or an account of profits. Maxcare’s separate passing-off claim also failed.

Avoiding trademark infringement: what should businesses check before reposting?

Review the branding inside the video, not just the caption you intend to add. Product labels, logos, opening screens and closing frames may show a mark that is not cleared for use in Malaysia.

If a supplier uses different branding overseas, ask for promotional material intended for the Malaysian market and confirmation of the permitted use. Permission to distribute a product should not be assumed to resolve every issue concerning the advertising supplied with it.

When a product is rebranded, review older social-media posts and advertisements as well as current packaging. Otherwise, the business may continue promoting the disputed branding through material that remains online.

If you receive a complaint, preserve copies of the posts and the supplier’s instructions, then obtain advice on the disputed use and an appropriate response. Deleting a post alone does not resolve a claim concerning its earlier publication.

This decision does not mean that every repost containing another person’s trademark is unlawful. It shows that a business’s promotional use of a disputed mark can attract liability even where its physical products use different branding.

Share this article