In the world of branding, the horse has long symbolised strength, speed, and prestige.
But in Malaysia, two very different horses recently collided.
One from the stables of Italian luxury icon Ferrari.
The other, from a bold local challenger in the energy drink arena — Wee Power.
In local parlance, it felt more like Daud vs Cavallino Rampante.
A Western parallel? David vs Goliath.
And in a legal race few saw coming, it was Wee Power that galloped to victory.
In a landmark ruling now echoing across legal and marketing circles, the Malaysian High Court dismissed Ferrari SpA’s trademark infringement claim against local beverage company Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd.
At stake was the right to register and use the “Wee Power” logo — featuring two rearing horses and a prominent “W”.
Ferrari claimed the design bore too close a resemblance to its iconic Cavallino Rampante (Prancing Horse) emblem.
The court disagreed.
Justice Adlin Abdul Majid ruled the two marks were “visually and conceptually distinct”.
Ferrari’s single stallion — sleek, solitary — was deemed unlike Sunrise-Mark’s duo of symmetrical, mirrored horses.
More crucially, the court said context mattered.
These were brands in vastly different arenas — high-end supercars versus fast-moving consumer beverages.
There was no likelihood, the court noted, that the average Malaysian sipping an energy drink would confuse it with a multimillion-ringgit Italian sports car.
And that’s where this becomes more than just a courtroom win.
It becomes a branding case study — about perception, authenticity, and the power of staying true to your roots.
Ferrari argued the name “Wee” was generic. And “Power”? Already disclaimed.
But Sunrise-Mark’s founder, Wee Juan Chien, had a clear explanation: “Wee” is his surname. No mimicking, no malice.
The judge accepted this — and, more importantly, found no deceit or intent to piggyback on Ferrari’s brand equity.
For marketers, this ruling delivers a triple shot of insight:
1.Trademarks live and die in context
Visual similarity is no longer enough.
In today’s fragmented brandscape, courts favour logic over looks.
Is the brand message alike?
Would consumers realistically confuse the two?
If not, you’re galloping in different leagues.
2. Authenticity trumps intimidation
Sunrise-Mark didn’t win because it had better lawyers or deeper pockets.
It won because its story was real and its purpose clear.
Malaysian brands should take note: If your house is in order and your identity is honest, you don’t need to flinch before global giants.
3. Legal is now part of branding
Marketers and legal teams must work in tandem from the start.
The days of treating logo filings as afterthoughts are over.
In today’s world, trademarks can be weaponised.
Your brand must be as defensible as it is distinctive.
The Wee Power vs Ferrari case may sound like a curious courtroom anecdote — a scrappy energy drink taking on a luxury carmaker.
But it signals something much bigger.
A shift in power.
A rise in brand sovereignty.
Emerging markets now have names willing to stand firm — and win.
For Malaysia’s branding community, this isn’t just Sunrise-Mark’s victory.
It’s proof that the era of copycat paranoia is fading.
In its place is a far more mature, contextual understanding of what makes a brand truly original.
And in that story, every local marketer, designer, and founder should find a spark of… power.
