KUALA LUMPUR: Why did the Malaysian Football League (MFL) allow Kuala Lumpur City Football Club to use its current name despite its trademark application being provisionally objected to by the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO)?
That is the question posed by Jerry Dinesh Pireira, sporting director of futsal club Kuala Lumpur City FC, which has been in existence since 2009.
Confusion arose after the Super League club, previously known as KL United FC, was rebranded as Kuala Lumpur City Football Club in 2021.
Pireira said the rebranding created a conflict with his club, which is registered with the Registrar of Sports as Kelab Bola Sepak Kuala Lumpur City and has operated under the Kuala Lumpur City FC identity since its establishment.
The football club’s management subsequently applied to register the Kuala Lumpur City FC trademark.
“I have a copy of the trademark details, which show that MyIPO provisionally objected to the application,” said Pireira.
“If the application was not approved, how was the name allowed to be used in professional football for years? That is the fundamental question.”
Pireira also raised several other questions:
• Why was the name allowed to be used when the club’s registered sporting entity operated under a different name, Kuala Lumpur United FC?
• Why did the MFL permit the use of the name despite the trademark application remaining unresolved for years?
• Why were repeated legal and formal communications left unanswered?
• Did political influence play a role in the handling of the matter?
“We have been around since 2009. How could another entity be allowed to use the same identity when its registered sporting entity was operating under a different name?” asked Pireira.
“Our club formally challenged trademark applications relating to the Kuala Lumpur City FC name through MyIPO. The matter remains unresolved, yet the Super League club continues to use the name.
“The confusion is damaging our brand. Some sponsors have withdrawn because they associate us with issues involving unpaid salaries to players and coaches at the football club, even though those matters have nothing to do with us.”
Kuala Lumpur FA president Syed Yazid Syed Omar is also chairman of Kuala Lumpur City Football Club.
Under MFL rules, state football associations are no longer permitted to directly own or manage clubs competing in the M-League, although they may hold shares in such clubs.
KLFA’s previous arrangement with Rinani Group Berhad in 2023 saw the company acquire a 51 per cent stake in Kuala Lumpur City Football Club, with KLFA retaining 49 per cent. The deal subsequently collapsed, leaving KLFA searching for new investors.
Pireira, a former national futsal player, said there had been attempts to resolve the issue amicably, including discussions on possible cooperation between the two entities.
His futsal club received a letter from the football club’s former chief executive officer, Stanley Bernard, in December, 2024, proposing collaboration between the two clubs as a way to resolve the dispute.
“However, nothing has come of it. We are left with no choice but to pursue the matter through the courts,” said Pireira, who added that KLFA was seeking to register the Kuala Lumpur City Football Club name again.
“This is not something our club wants to do, but we need to clear the air and protect our reputation. It is not easy getting sponsors, and our name is being tarnished as the football club faces financial difficulties.”
He also alleged that several letters sent to the relevant parties went unanswered.
“Our concern is not only the name itself. It is the lack of accountability. We have sent legal letters, sought engagement and tried to resolve the matter within the football family. Yet many of those communications have received no response,” he said.
Pireira said he was prepared to consider arrangements that would benefit football development and ensure the long-term sustainability of his club.
However, those efforts stalled amid leadership changes and internal developments within the Kuala Lumpur Football Association’s administration.
Pireira argued that the dispute highlights broader concerns about governance in Malaysian football.
“The public deserves to know how these decisions were made. This is bigger than a trademark dispute. It is about governance, transparency and accountability,” he said.
While legal action remains under consideration, Pireira said his immediate objective was to seek answers on how the naming issue was handled and why it had been allowed to continue for so long.
