Abstract: Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) play an important role in contributing into the income and profits of a business and economic growth of many countries. However, IPRs infringement may destroy such benefits. In order to effectively combat infringement activities, it is important for such actions to be covered not only as protected rights under the relevant substantive laws but also necessary to assess which legal procedures and remedies are available to enforce such rights. In Malaysia, IPRs-holders may bring legal action against infringer (s) either through civil or criminal proceedings, administrative action or combinations thereof. This study analyses the interim injunction as one of the civil remedies that may be enforced by them. The objective is to examine how interim injunction may function as appropriate remedy for IPRs-holders to obtain equivalent compensation and as a weapon to discourage future infringement. The study employs socio-legal method in examining the issue at hand by adopting qualitative approach as a tool for data collection in identifying the scale of infringement and using legal approach to analyze the provisions of relevant laws and decided cases. The study finds that civil proceedings, particularly interim injunction do assist right-holders in protecting their rights and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the business and the IP system. However, the study identifies that outdated legal provisions and expensive procedures are among the obstacles faced by businesses in this proceedings and recommends andkort gedingand procedures as practised in the Netherlands may be considered by the Malaysian authorities to overcome the limitations.