LITT
Try LITT free
Sunrise Plus (Pte) Ltd v The Sunrider Corp dba Sunrider International [2025] SGHC 51
In Sunrise Plus (Pte) Ltd v The Sunrider Corp [2025] SGHC 51, the High Court allowed the appeal on passing off (s 8(7)(a)) due to insufficient evidence of goodwill, but dismissed the appeal on s 8(2)(b), ultimately refusing the registration of the Appellant's trade mark applications.
Hayate Partners Pte Ltd v Rajan Sunil Kumar [2025] SGHC 41
The court held that an employee breached contractual and equitable obligations of confidence by retaining confidential information after employment termination, despite the absence of express contractual prohibitions against accessing or downloading such information for non-work
FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 266
The Singapore High Court dismissed a claim regarding restraint of trade clauses, ruling them void and unenforceable. The court held that general sales training does not establish a legitimate proprietary interest necessary to justify such restrictions.
Ng Say Keong (trading as S & K Solid Wood Doors) v Jia Le Aluminium Pte Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 243
The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed, and that the defendants were liable for passing off due to intentional misrepresentation.
Yang Qiang and another v Gallop APAC Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 187
The court held that an oral agreement existed between the parties where the defendant held 90% of the shares in the company on trust for the claimant, and that the defendant breached this trust arrangement.
Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others [2025] SGHCR 35
In Dr Who Waterworks v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] SGHCR 35, the court awarded damages for trademark infringement, ruling that distinct heads of damage—such as royalty losses and product sales—must be treated independently, rejecting the defendants' attempt to conflate them.
Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 15
In Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28
The court held that the threshold requirement of 'trade mark use' (use as a badge of origin) remains a necessary prerequisite for trade mark infringement in Singapore, even in the context of internet advertising. The court rejected the 'effect-centric' approach derived from CJEU
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 39
The court held that no binding distribution agreement was formed between the parties because there was no intention to create legal relations, and the alleged agreement lacked certainty on essential terms such as the identity of the distributor, the P&A plan, the scope of rights,
TOWA Corp v ASMPT Singapore Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 163
The court clarified parameters for the assessment of damages for patent infringement, including the calculation of 'But-for Sales', market share, and the exclusion of unclassified general costs.
East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 102
The court held that the defendant's use of the claimant's trade mark in Google Ads did not constitute trade mark infringement or passing off, as the defendant's website, which was an integral part of the advertisement, dispelled any likelihood of confusion.
Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2024] SGCA 53
The Singapore Court of Appeal ruled in Fonterra Brands v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano that 'Parmesan' is not a translation of the GI 'Parmigiano Reggiano', allowing its continued use in Singapore. The court emphasized local consumer perception over strict linguistic equivalence.
Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGCA 16
In a breach of confidence claim, a plaintiff may plead wrongful gain and wrongful loss interests in the alternative, but cannot claim both for the same set of documents or information as the Coco and I-Admin tests are mutually exclusive in that context.
Towa Corp v ASM Technology Singapore Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 99
The court assessed damages for patent infringement, determining that the measure of damages should be based on lost profits from sales of the plaintiff's machines, excluding unsold and post-expiry machines, and applying a year-on-year approach for profit calculation.
Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2023] SGHC 77
The court held that 'Parmesan' is a translation of the geographical indication 'Parmigiano Reggiano' under the Geographical Indications Act 2014, and that the burden of proof in opposition proceedings lies on the party opposing the qualification of rights.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc and another v Zyfas Medical Co (sued as a firm) [2023] SGHC 360
The court found one patent (SG 322) valid but not infringed, and the other patent (SG 29P) invalid for lack of inventive step.
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 255
A statutory exclusive licensee under the Copyright Act 2021 cannot grant a statutory exclusive licence by way of sub-licence; such a sub-licence is merely a contractual sub-licence and does not divest the original exclusive licensee of their standing to sue for copyright infringe
Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another v Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and others [2023] SGHC 241
A plaintiff in a claim for breach of confidence is entitled to plead and claim that both its wrongful gain interest and wrongful loss interest have been infringed, and the court may award both damages under the Coco approach and equitable damages under the I-Admin approach.
Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others [2023] SGHC 156
The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' trade marks and committed passing off by using signs similar to the plaintiffs' registered marks in Singapore, and that the defendants were liable for breach of the Deed.
Amanresorts Limited and Another v Novelty Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 201
The court held that the tort of passing off was established where the defendant used an identical name for a residential project that was associated with the plaintiffs' well-known resort brand, creating a real risk of confusion and damage to goodwill.
Caterpillar Inc v Ong Eng Peng (formerly trading as Catplus International) [2006] SGHC 58
The court held that the defendant's use of the mark 'CATPLUS' in relation to construction equipment infringed the plaintiff's registered 'CAT' trade marks and constituted passing off, as there was a likelihood of confusion among the public.
Dextra Asia Co Ltd and Another v Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 85
The court has the discretion to grant an Earth Closet/Scott-Paine order in patent infringement actions where a defendant applies to amend their particulars of objections to include new prior art, to ensure justice between parties and prevent unnecessary wastage of costs.
Nagasima Electronic Engineering Pte Ltd v APH Trading Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 59
A registered design is not novel if it is identical to prior art, and features dictated solely by function or 'must fit' requirements are excluded from protection.