LITT
Try LITT free
Kingsforce Management Services Pte Ltd [2023] SGPDPCS 1
Analysis of [2023] SGPDPCS 1, a decision of the Personal Data Protection Commission on 2023-05-11.
Coinbase, Inc. v bitFlyer Inc. [2023] SGIPOS 9
In Coinbase, Inc. v bitFlyer Inc., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Invalidation.
Nidec Control Techniques Limited v Uni-Drive Systems (S) Pte Ltd [2023] SGIPOS 8
In Nidec Control Techniques Limited v Uni-Drive Systems (S) Pte Ltd, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Revocation for non-use.
HMV Brand Pte. Ltd. v Yongfeng Trade Co., Limited [2023] SGIPOS 7
In HMV Brand Pte. Ltd. v Yongfeng Trade Co., Limited, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Invalidation.
Vetements Group AG v Xiamen VETEMENTS Brand Management co,LTD. [2023] SGIPOS 6
In Vetements Group AG v Xiamen VETEMENTS Brand Management co,LTD., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Invalidation.
NCL Corporation v Norwegian Brand Ltd. [2023] SGIPOS 5
In NCL Corporation v Norwegian Brand Ltd., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
Yap Fei Fei v Chuan Hong Seng Pte. Ltd. [2023] SGIPOS 4
In Yap Fei Fei v Chuan Hong Seng Pte. Ltd., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
Soon Ailing v Chen & Partners (S) Pte. Ltd. [2023] SGIPOS 3
In Soon Ailing v Chen & Partners (S) Pte. Ltd., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Registered designs – Revocation.
Baidu Online Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd v Baidu Europe BV [2023] SGIPOS 2
In Baidu Online Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd v Baidu Europe BV, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Invalidation.
Monster Energy Company v YG Entertainment Inc [2023] SGIPOS 14
In Monster Energy Company v YG Entertainment Inc, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
Monster Energy Company v IICOMBINED Co., Ltd. [2023] SGIPOS 13
In Monster Energy Company v IICOMBINED Co., Ltd., the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
Outschool Inc v ALLSCHOOLS PTE LTD [2023] SGIPOS 12
In Outschool Inc v ALLSCHOOLS PTE LTD, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
ZERODENSITY YAZILIM ANONIM SIRKETI v Novel Brands USA LLC [2023] SGIPOS 11
In ZERODENSITY YAZILIM ANONIM SIRKETI v Novel Brands USA LLC, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore addressed issues of Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration.
In the matter of a trade mark application by Louis Vuitton Malletier [2023] SGIPOS 10
Analysis of [2023] SGIPOS 10, a decision of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore on 2023-05-03.
In the matter of a Trade Mark Application by Schweiger, Martin Rainer Gabriel [2023] SGIPOS 1
Analysis of [2023] SGIPOS 1, a decision of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore on 2023-01-03.
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.
Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 98
The court granted the extension of moratoria under s 64 of the IRDA, finding that the applicants had a substantial connection to Singapore and that the proposed scheme was not unworkable.
Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others [2023] SGHC 96
The Singapore High Court dismissed all claims in Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2023] SGHC 96, ruling that participants in a Ponzi scheme do not owe a duty of care to one another. The court held that fellow investors are not liable for losses, emphasizing the need for independent due diligence.
Public Prosecutor v Low Sze Song and another [2023] SGHC 95
The court found that the chain of custody for the drug exhibits was intact and that the accused persons failed to rebut the presumptions of possession and knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Ahmad Danial bin Mohamed Rafa’ee v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 94
The court held that the presumptive position is that a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNATA) should be ordered under s 232(2) of the CPC, and this presumption is stronger for serious offences. The court also observed that it may have inherent powers to grant a discharge
Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng and another appeal [2023] SGHC 93
The High Court affirmed that a complainant's testimony can establish proof beyond reasonable doubt if it is unusually convincing, regardless of corroboration. In this case, the testimony was both exceptionally credible and supported by external evidence.
Amberwork Source Pte Ltd v QA Systems Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 92
The Singapore High Court dismissed Amberwork Source Pte Ltd's breach of contract claim against QA Systems, ruling the plaintiff failed to prove non-delivery. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the claimant, especially when contemporaneous evidence suggests delivery occurred.
Appangam Govindhasamy (legal representative of the estate of T Govindasamy, deceased) and others v Salaya Kalairani and another [2023] SGHC 91
The court held that the defendants failed to prove that the deceased held his half-share in the property on a resulting trust or common intention constructive trust for the other co-owner, as there was insufficient evidence to displace the presumption of indefeasibility of title.
Ho Soo Tong and others v Ho Soo Fong and others [2023] SGHC 90
The court held that an express trust was created over the disputed shares in Invest Ho in favour of the Plaintiffs and Peng Zuo, based on the 2012 Agreement and the parties' conduct.