虎纹图案之谜：谁才真正拥有马来亚虎的咆哮？

随着2026年国际足联世界杯^*1的落幕，席卷全球的足球热潮终于开始逐渐平息。当全世界都在夏天关注国际足坛豪门为最终荣耀而激战时，马来西亚球迷们却在反思本国的足球抱负。展望未来，我们均怀揣一个梦想：有朝一日，我们的国家队马来亚虎能够登上世界杯的舞台，在顶尖强队中咆哮。但在梦想成为现实之前，我们的足球体系必须夯实根基。在体育界，成功既建立在球场上，也同样建立在决策室里。事实上，我国体育史上一桩耐人寻味的法律纠纷，恰恰揭示了为何一支球队的品牌形象，需要像球门线一样全力守护。

Following the conclusion of the 2026 FIFA World Cup^*1, global football fever is finally beginning to settle. While the world spent the summer watching international giants battle for ultimate glory, Malaysian fans found themselves reflecting on our own footballing ambitions. Looking ahead, we share a collective dream that one day, our national squad, the Harimau Malaya, will take to the pitch on the World Cup stage and roar among the best. But before that dream becomes a reality, our footballing ecosystem must secure its foundations. In sports, success is built just as much in the boardroom as it is on the turf. Indeed, a curious legal battle from our own sporting history reveals why a team’s brand identity requires just as much defence as a goal line.

*1 https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/canadamexicousa2026/articles/fifa-world-cup-2026-hosts-cities-dates-usa-mexico-canada

这一案件就是Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd诉马来西亚国家体育理事会‌[1]，一场围绕马来西亚运动员所穿的如今已广为人知的虎纹图案而引发的纠纷。该案始终提醒着我们：在风险极高的职业体育世界中，品牌绝非仅仅是装饰，而是必须严加守护的宝贵商业资产。

This is the curious case of Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia [1], a dispute over the now-famous tiger stripes worn by Malaysian athletes. It serves as a lasting reminder that in the high-stakes world of professional sports, branding is not merely decoration. It is a valuable commercial asset that must be guarded with vigilance.

故事始于2005年，当时青年与体育部联合国家体育理事会举办了一场设计比赛，旨在为国家队队服设计新的图案。最终获胜的作品便是如今广为人知的虎纹图案设计，该设计在发布后迅速成为了马来西亚代表团在重大赛事中的标志性象征。[2]

The story began in 2005 when the Ministry of Youth and Sports, alongside the National Sports Council, organized a competition to design a new motif for our national jerseys. The winning entry, the now-famous tiger stripe design, was unveiled and quickly became synonymous with the Malaysian contingent at major games.[2]

多年来，一家名为Mesuma Sports的公司一直担任合同供应商，为国家队生产印有该设计的队服。然而，当Mesuma在未告知国家体育理事会的情况下，擅自申请将虎纹图案注册为自有商标时，双方关系变得紧张起来。简而言之，一个商业伙伴试图将这一由公共部门委托设计的国家象征据为己有。[3]

For years, a company named Mesuma Sports served as a contract supplier, manufacturing jerseys adorned with this design for the national team. However, the relationship turned contentious when Mesuma, without the knowledge of the council, applied to register the tiger stripe motif as its own trademark. Essentially, a business partner had attempted to claim ownership over a national symbol that had been commissioned by the public sector.[3]

随后爆发的法律纠纷一路打到了联邦法院，成为了马来西亚知识产权领域具有里程碑意义的判例。Mesuma主张，该理事会作为非营利性法定机构，并未在商业活动中使用该设计，因此无权主张商标所有权。[4]

The ensuing legal battle climbed all the way to the Federal Court, becoming a landmark precedent for intellectual property in Malaysia. Mesuma argued that the council, as a non-profit statutory body, did not use the design in the course of trade and therefore could not claim trademark ownership.[4]

法院对此持不同意见，最终裁定国家体育机构胜诉。联邦法院明确指出，在先使用原则并不要求当事人必须是传统商业实体才能确立所有权。由于理事会委托设计了该图案，并将其用于表明供应给我国运动员的服装来源，因此理事会是合法权利人。[5] 法院撤销了Mesuma的注册商标，并明确指出供应商盗用该设计的行为绝不可姑息。[6]

The courts disagreed, delivering a decisive victory for the national sports body. The Federal Court clarified that the first to use principle does not require a party to be a traditional commercial entity to establish ownership. Because the council had commissioned the design and used it to indicate the origin of the apparel supplied to our athletes, it was the rightful proprietor.[5] The court expunged Mesuma's trademark registration, famously noting that the conduct of the supplier in misappropriating the design could not be condoned.[6]

虎纹图案这一案件为当今马来西亚体育产业中的运动员、协会和企业提供了三点重要启示。

The tiger stripes case offers three important lessons for athletes, associations and businesses operating in Malaysia’s sports industry today.

1. 所有权并非自动获得：仅仅制造或供应品牌商品，并不意味着您就是该品牌的所有者。同样，委托设计本身也不能确立商标所有权。合同应明确规定商标、著作权、外观设计及商誉归谁所有，以及谁有权使用和注册这些权益。[7]

   
   

   Ownership Is Not Automatic: Simply manufacturing or supplying branded goods does not make you the owner of the brand. Equally, commissioning a design does not by itself establish trademark ownership. Contracts should clearly state who owns the trademarks, copyright, designs and goodwill, as well as who may use and register them.[7]

   
   

2. 尽早向马来西亚知识产权局（MyIPO）申请注册：2019年《商标法》为包括徽标、标语和独特视觉图案在内的多种标识提供了保护。注册能确立法定权利，使权利人在对抗仿冒者、未经授权使用者及恶意申请人时处于更有利的地位。[8]

   
   

   Register Early with MyIPO: The Trademarks Act 2019 provides protection for a broad range of marks, including logos, slogans and distinctive visual motifs. Registration creates statutory rights and places the owner in a stronger position to act against counterfeiters, unauthorised users and bad-faith applicants.[8]

   
   

3. 使用、注册并保存证据：联邦法院确认，首次使用是普通法商标权的基础。应通过营销、官方商品、赞助及公开展示等方式持续使用品牌，妥善保存使用记录，并及时提交注册申请。[9]

   
   

   Use It, Register It and Keep the Evidence: The Federal Court confirmed that first use is fundamental to common law trademark ownership. Use the brand consistently through marketing, official merchandise, sponsorships and public representation, keep proper records of that use and apply for registration without delay.[9]

在知识产权领域，最好的防御不只是懂法，而是在哨声响起之前就采取行动。虎纹图案之所以经久不衰，是因为马来西亚国家体育理事会使用它，围绕它积累商誉，并守护它所代表的身份。[10] 对于每一位运动员和体育组织而言，信息非常明确：将您的品牌当作制胜法宝，在他人抢先占有之前牢牢守住。若能在赛场之外打下更坚实的基础，或许有一天，马来亚虎的咆哮将在世界杯的舞台上响彻云霄。

In the arena of intellectual property, the best defence is not merely knowing the law, but acting before the whistle blows. The tiger stripes endure because MSN used them, built goodwill around them and protected the identity they came to represent.[10] For every athlete and sporting organisation, the message is clear: treat your brand like a match-winning asset and secure it before someone else takes possession. With stronger foundations off the pitch, perhaps Harimau Malaya’s roar will one day be heard on the World Cup stage. 

[1] Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd诉马来西亚国家体育理事会（马来西亚商标注册官，利害关系人）[2015] 6 MLJ 465 (FC)。

[1] Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Sukan Negara Malaysia (Pendaftar Cap Dagangan Malaysia, Interested Party) [2015] 6 MLJ 465 (FC).

[2] 同上，paras 6-8。

[2] Ibid, paras 6-8.

[3] 同上，paras 5 and 8–13。

[3] Ibid, paras 5 and 8–13.

[4] 同上，paras 53–54 and 69–73。

[4] Ibid, paras 53–54 and 69–73.

[5] 同上，paras 37–39, 47–49 and 59–68。

[5] Ibid, paras 37–39, 47–49 and 59–68.

[6] 同上，paras 16–19 and 80。

[6] Ibid, paras 16–19 and 80.

[7] 同上，paras 37–38 and 60–6。

[7] Ibid, paras 37–38 and 60–66.

[8] 同上，2019年《商标法》[Act 815], ss 2, 3, 16 and 48。

[8] Ibid, Trademarks Act 2019 [Act 815], ss 2, 3, 16 and 48.

[9] Mesuma Sports (n 3), para 47；2019年《商标法》[Act 815], ss 24(4), 34, 55(2) and 159。

[9] Mesuma Sports (n 3), para 47; Trademarks Act 2019 [Act 815], ss 24(4), 34, 55(2) and 159.

[10] Mesuma Sports (n 3)，paras 75 and 78–80。

[10] Mesuma Sports (n 3), paras 75 and 78–80.

在此处^*2订阅以获取更多类似文章。

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here^*2.

*2 https://pssle.co/marks-clerk/s/102hxx4

---

联系作者 Contact the author

vguuk@marks-clerk.com.my