LITT
Try LITT free
Richemont International SA v Goldlion Enterprise (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 208
The court held that the Respondent's mark 'Jean Mercier' was not similar to the Appellant's mark 'Baume & Mercier', and therefore there was no likelihood of confusion under s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
OTO Bodycare Pte Ltd v Hiew Keat Foong [2005] SGHC 133
The court held that the defendant's mark was similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'OTO', creating a likelihood of confusion, and that the defendant's use of the 'Notice of Agreement' revived the passing off claim.
McDonald's Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 81
Opposition to trade mark registration under s 12 and s 15 of the Trade Marks Act fails where the marks are not substantially identical and there is no real tangible danger of confusion.
Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 11
The court held that sentencing for trade mark infringement should be determined by the number of infringing articles involved rather than a fixed jail term per charge, and that deterrent sentences are warranted for large-scale distribution of counterfeit goods in Singapore.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v United States Polo Association [2002] SGHC 10
The court held that the applicant's mark was not calculated to deceive or cause confusion with the opponent's mark, considering the differences in the marks and the circumstances of their use.
Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation (S) Ltd [2001] SGHC 328
In a passing-off action, the plaintiff must establish the 'classical trinity' of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. The court found that the defendants, not the plaintiffs, were the first to use the Hi-Bond mark on adhesive tapes and thus owned the goodwill.
Radcoflex Australia Pty Ltd and Another v James Lim Hwa Chin and Another [2000] SGHC 96
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove authorship, citizenship, or residency of the authors of the works, and failed to establish that the defendants' machine was a reproduction of the plaintiffs' drawings.
Institut Pasteur and Another v Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 53
The court held that the Plaintiffs' patent for HIV-2 was valid and infringed by the Defendants, rejecting arguments of lack of novelty and inventive step, and finding that the Defendants' diagnostic kits infringed the patent claims.
Australian Grape and Wine Inc v Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco [2022] SGHC 33
In Australian Grape and Wine Inc v Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Geographical indications.
V V Technology Pte Ltd v Twitter, Inc [2022] SGHC 293
In V v Technology Pte Ltd v Twitter, Inc, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
Motherhood Pte Ltd v Lau Elaine and others
A descriptive mark, even if it has acquired secondary meaning, receives a narrower scope of protection than an arbitrary mark, and minor differences are sufficient to distinguish a defendant's mark.
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 138
In Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Copyright.
IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd [2023] SGCA 5
In IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Patents and Inventions.
Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated [2023] SGCA 37
The Singapore Court of Appeal allowed the Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco's appeal, permitting the registration of 'Prosecco' as a geographical indication after finding insufficient evidence that Singaporean consumers would be misled.
Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co KG Arzneimittel [2022] SGHC 78
In Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff GmbH & Co KG Arzneimittel, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trademarks.
Singsung Pte Ltd and another v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (Trading as L S Electrical Trading) and another [2015] SGHC 148
In Singsung Pte Ltd and another v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (Trading as L S Electrical Trading) and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual property — Passing off, Tort — Defamation.
Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others [2016] SGHC 214
In an application for summary judgment for trade mark infringement, the court must determine if there is a prima facie case of infringement and if the defendant has a real or bona fide defence. Innocent infringement is not a defence in civil trade mark infringement actions.
Nippon Shinyaku Co, Ltd v Registrar of Patents [2022] SGHC 164
In Nippon Shinyaku Co, Ltd v Registrar of Patents, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Patents and Inventions.
The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others v General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another [2022] SGHC 142
In The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others v General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Copyright.
Asia Petworld Pte Ltd v Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and another [2022] SGHC 128
In Asia Petworld Pte Ltd v Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Law of confidence, Tort — Conspiracy to injure.
Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd [2021] SGHC 49
In Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel v Combe International Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
All India Supermart Pte Ltd v Indian Supermarket Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 293
In All India Supermart Pte Ltd v Indian Supermarket Pte Ltd and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others v PTC Business Systems Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 272
In FUJIFILM Business Innovation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others v PTC Business Systems Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Copyright, Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.