LITT
Try LITT free
Weir Warman Ltd v Research & Development Pty Ltd [2007] SGHC 59
The court held that where parties have concurrent contractual rights to use a trade mark in non-exclusive territories, they also have concurrent implied rights to register and protect that mark. The absence of manufacturing rights in the place of registration does not preclude th
Rothmans of Pall Mall Limited v Maycolson International Ltd [2006] SGHC 51
Bad faith in trade mark registration is a distinct issue from confusing similarity, and an applicant has a positive duty to investigate the bona fides of a mark if circumstances suggest impropriety.
Nautical Concept Pte Ltd v Jeffery Mark Richard and Another [2006] SGHC 239
An application for a trade mark is made in bad faith if it involves dealings that fall short of standards of acceptable commercial behaviour, even if the marks are not identical or confusingly similar.
Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald's Corp [2006] SGHC 175
The court held that the marks 'MacCoffee' and 'McCAFÉ' are visually, aurally and conceptually similar, and given the similarity of the goods, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 150
This case clarifies that a trademark registered in block capitals protects the word in any legible font. It also confirms that multiple trademarks can coexist on a single product without affecting the validity of their registrations.
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.
Nike International Ltd and Another v Campomar Sociedad Limitada [2005] SGHC 139
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to trade mark opposition proceedings where a final decision has been made by the Registrar, and that genuine use of a trade mark can be established through commercial import/export activities even if limited in frequency.
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.
Creative Technology Ltd v Cosmos Trade-Nology Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 188
Innocence is not a valid defence to a claim for damages or injunctive relief in a civil action for trade mark infringement. A director who procures or induces a company's infringement can be held personally liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Bluestar Exchange (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Teoh Keng Long and others (trading as Polykwan Trading Co) [2003] SGHC 169
The court held that the use of variants of a registered trade mark does not alter the distinctive character of the mark if the variations are immaterial, and that the specification of goods should be narrowed only to reflect the actual use made of the mark.
Ng Chu Chong trading as Grand Am Fashion Enterprise v Ng Swee Choon and Others [2002] SGHC 39
The case establishes that a trademark registered in the joint names of partners is partnership property, and upon dissolution of the partnership, the rights to the trademark are subject to the agreement between the partners regarding the transfer of partnership assets.
Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 142
The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in their logo and that the defence of fair dealing was not available as the matter was not of public interest and the work was artistic, not literary.
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.
PT Permona v Shanghai Tobacco Group and Another [2001] SGHC 359
The court held that the applicant was not a bona fide proprietor of the trade mark as it had attempted to copy and misappropriate the opponents' mark.
Rainforest Coffee Products Pte Ltd v Rainforest Cafe, Inc
The court held that the registered user provisions of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Ed) are permissive rather than mandatory, and that a proprietor's intention to use a trade mark through a franchisee is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of 'proposed to be used' under s
Sime Darby Edible Products Ltd v Ngo Chew Hong Edible Oil Pte Ltd [2000] SGHC 145
The court held that the trade mark 'Royal Spoon' is not devoid of any distinctive character and that there is no likelihood of confusion with the applicant's earlier trade mark.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 15
In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Trade Marks — Infringement.
MediaCorp News Pte Ltd v Astro All Asia Networks PLC
The court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks in the context of Class 35 services provided to commercial enterprises, as the marks were visually and conceptually distinct enough to discerning consumers.
Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another [2012] SGHC 204
mber 2013 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Sundaresh Menon CJ; Chao Hick Tin JA; VK Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Dedar Singh Gill, Gabriel Ong Sheng Li, (Drew & Napier LLC, Instructed) and Prithipal Singh (Mirandah Law LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 147 of 2012 an
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd
The court awarded $35,000 in statutory damages for trade mark infringement under section 31(5)(c) of the Trade Mark Act, considering factors such as flagrancy, deterrence, and the defendant's uncooperative conduct.
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.
Global Tobacco Manufacturers (International) Sdn Bhd v Jamal Abdulnaser Mahmoud Al Mahamid [2015] SGCA 51
The court held that evidence of actual confusion is not a necessary element of the cause of action for trademark invalidation, and that a high degree of similarity between marks and identical goods is sufficient to infer a likelihood of confusion.
Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appeal [2013] SGCA 65
In Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Trade Marks — Trade Names, Trade Marks — Passing off.