Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others [2023] SGHC 156

Case Details

• Citation: [2023] SGHC 156
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 26 May 2023
• Coram: Dedar Singh Gill J
• Case Number: Suit No 600 of 2020 (consolidated with Suit No 96 of 2021)
• Hearing Date(s): 6–8 September, 14 November 2022
• Plaintiffs: Dr. Who Waterworks Pte Ltd (formerly known as Cana Services Pte Ltd); Dr. Who Waterworks (S) Pte Ltd; Dr. Who Waterworks (M) Sdn Bhd; Dr. Who Waterworks (East Coast) Pte Ltd; Dr. Who Waterworks (West Coast) Pte Ltd; Dr. Who Waterworks (Central) Pte Ltd; Dr. Who Waterworks (North Coast) Pte Ltd
• Defendants: Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd; Dr. Who Water (S) Pte Ltd; Dr. Who Water (M) Sdn Bhd; Dr. Who Waterworks (S) Pte Ltd (now known as DWW (S) Pte Ltd); Oo Tim Wee; Tan Siew Luan
• Counsel for Plaintiffs: Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu, Winnifred Gomez and Farhan Tyebally (Gomez & Vasu LLC)
• Counsel for Defendants: Anand s/o K Thiagarajan (AKT Legal Chambers)
• Practice Areas: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks; Passing Off; Contract; Tort of Conspiracy

Summary

The judgment in [2023] SGHC 156 represents a significant exploration of the boundaries of trade mark infringement and passing off within the context of a fractured commercial relationship. The dispute centered on the "DR. WHO" brand, a mark registered in both Singapore and Malaysia, which became the focal point of litigation between a group of Singapore-based plaintiffs and a group of defendants operating across the causeway. The core of the conflict arose from the defendants' use of the "DR. WHO" name and a distinctive quatrefoil-droplet device on various mediums, including commercial vehicles, product packaging (referred to as "the Cartons"), websites, and social media platforms. The plaintiffs alleged that these actions constituted trade mark infringement under the Trade Marks Act and the common law tort of passing off, while also asserting that the defendants had breached a settlement deed executed in 2011 (the "Deed") intended to govern the parties' respective geographical and commercial spheres.

The High Court was required to navigate a complex factual matrix involving corporate evolutions, cross-border shareholding transitions, and the eventual breakdown of trust between the primary movers of the businesses, Mr. Koh Tiong Gee and Mr. Oo Tim Wee. A primary doctrinal contribution of this case lies in its detailed application of the "step-by-step" approach to trade mark infringement, particularly in assessing the similarity of marks and the likelihood of confusion when a defendant utilizes a mark that is nearly identical to a registered mark but incorporates minor variations or additional devices. The court's analysis of "use in the course of trade" in relation to commercial vehicles sighted in Singapore but registered in Malaysia provides a nuanced understanding of how physical presence and branding interact with territorial IP rights.

Furthermore, the judgment addresses the intersection of contract law and intellectual property. The court scrutinized the 2011 Deed to determine whether the defendants' subsequent commercial activities in Singapore violated restrictive covenants. This involved a rigorous exercise in contractual interpretation, balancing the literal text of the Deed against the commercial context of a settlement intended to achieve a "clean break." The court's findings on the breach of the Deed underscore the necessity for precision in drafting settlement agreements that involve the division of intellectual property rights and market territories.

Ultimately, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the primary claims of trade mark infringement and passing off. The court held that the defendants' use of the "DR. WHO" name on vehicles and packaging in Singapore created a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public, who would perceive the goods and services as originating from the plaintiffs. However, the court dismissed the more expansive claims of unlawful conspiracy and the wrongful detention of labels, finding insufficient evidence of a combined intent to injure or an unlawful act beyond the infringements themselves. The decision reinforces the robustness of trade mark protection in Singapore against unauthorized use that leverages established brand equity, even when such use occurs under the guise of a related corporate history.

Timeline of Events

1. 19 February 1998: Incorporation of the first plaintiff as Cana Services Pte Ltd.
2. 26 September 2002: Cana Services Pte Ltd is renamed Dr. Who Waterworks Pte Ltd.
3. 6 May 2003: The first plaintiff expands its business to include "bottles of water with label design and personalised branding."
4. 15 June 2004: The first plaintiff registers the "DR. WHO" trade mark in Singapore (T0409411Z).
5. 11 April 2007: Incorporation of the first defendant, Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd, in Malaysia.
6. 27 June 2007: The first plaintiff enters into a Share Sale Agreement to sell its shares in the first defendant to the fifth defendant and others.
7. 16 April 2008: The first plaintiff registers the "DR. WHO" trade mark in Malaysia (08006767).
8. 2011: The parties execute a Deed of Settlement (the "Deed") to resolve prior disputes and define their respective business territories.
9. 6 September 2016: Registration of the domain "drwho.com.my" by the first defendant.
10. 28 March 2019: A Private Investigator (PI) report identifies "Vehicle B" (bearing the "DR. WHO" mark) at various locations in Singapore.
11. 10 April 2019: PI report identifies "Vehicle A" (bearing the "DR. WHO" mark) in Singapore.
12. 7 May 2019: The plaintiffs' solicitors issue a cease and desist letter to the first and second defendants.
13. 27 May 2019: The defendants' solicitors respond, denying the allegations of infringement.
14. 17 July 2019: The first plaintiff registers a further "DR. WHO" mark in Singapore (40201915525U).
15. 1 August 2020: The fourth defendant changes its name from Dr. Who Waterworks (S) Pte Ltd to DWW (S) Pte Ltd following a direction from ACRA.
16. 3 July 2020: The plaintiffs commence the present proceedings (Suit 600 of 2020).
17. 1 February 2021: Suit 96 of 2021 is commenced and subsequently consolidated with Suit 600 of 2020.
18. 6–8 September, 14 November 2022: Substantive hearing of the consolidated suits.
19. 26 May 2023: Judgment delivered by Dedar Singh Gill J.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The first plaintiff, Dr. Who Waterworks Pte Ltd, was established in 1998 and underwent a significant rebranding in 2002 to adopt its current name. Under the stewardship of Mr. Koh Tiong Gee, the company carved out a niche in the Singaporean market for bottled water and water dispenser services. By 2003, the business model expanded to include personalized branding for bottled water, a service that allowed corporate clients to feature their own logos alongside the "DR. WHO" mark. This expansion was supported by the registration of the "DR. WHO" trade mark in Singapore in 2004 and subsequently in Malaysia in 2008. The plaintiffs collectively built a reputation for quality and reliability in the supply of 5-gallon bottled water and related services.

The defendants' involvement began with the incorporation of the first defendant in Malaysia in 2007. Initially, there was a degree of cooperation between the parties, with the first plaintiff holding a 30% shareholding in the first defendant. However, this relationship was short-lived. In June 2007, the first plaintiff divested its shares to the fifth defendant, Mr. Oo Tim Wee, and other Malaysian shareholders. This divestment was intended to separate the Singaporean and Malaysian operations, but it instead sowed the seeds of future conflict. The parties' interactions were characterized by a series of disputes regarding the use of the "DR. WHO" name and the geographical limits of their respective businesses.

In 2011, the parties sought to resolve these tensions through the execution of a Deed. The Deed was designed to be a comprehensive settlement, containing restrictive covenants that prohibited the defendants from competing with the plaintiffs in Singapore and from using the "DR. WHO" name in a manner that would interfere with the plaintiffs' business. Despite this agreement, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants continued to encroach upon the Singaporean market. The primary evidence of this encroachment came from Private Investigator reports commissioned by the plaintiffs in 2019. These reports documented the presence of Malaysian-registered vehicles (Vehicle A and Vehicle B) in Singapore, which were prominently branded with the "DR. WHO" name and a quatrefoil-droplet device. These vehicles were observed making deliveries and parked in public areas, effectively serving as mobile advertisements for the defendants' services.

The dispute also extended to the digital realm. The first defendant maintained a website (drwho.com.my) and various social media pages (Facebook and Instagram) that utilized the "DR. WHO" mark. The plaintiffs argued that these digital assets were accessible to Singaporean consumers and created the false impression that the defendants' Malaysian business was affiliated with or an extension of the plaintiffs' Singaporean operations. Furthermore, the plaintiffs identified "the Cartons"—packaging for bottled water—that bore the "DR. WHO" mark and were allegedly distributed or visible in Singapore. The plaintiffs contended that this packaging was nearly identical to their own, leading to significant brand confusion.

The corporate structure of the defendants also became a point of contention. The fourth defendant was incorporated in Singapore under the name "Dr. Who Waterworks (S) Pte Ltd," a name nearly identical to the second plaintiff. This led to an intervention by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), which, on 7 August 2020, directed the fourth defendant to change its name pursuant to s 27(2) of the Companies Act. The fourth defendant complied and was renamed DWW (S) Pte Ltd. The plaintiffs cited this as further evidence of the defendants' intent to misappropriate the "DR. WHO" brand identity in Singapore. The defendants, in turn, raised counterclaims, including a claim for $143,665.80 for unpaid goods (bottled water) supplied by the second defendant to the plaintiffs, and allegations of conspiracy against the plaintiffs for attempting to disrupt their Malaysian business.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The litigation presented a multi-layered set of legal challenges, primarily focused on intellectual property rights and contractual obligations. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' multi-channel use of the "DR. WHO" brand crossed the threshold of legal infringement and whether the 2011 Deed provided a valid defense or a separate cause of action.

• Trade Mark Infringement: The central issue was whether the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs' registered trade marks under the Trade Marks Act. This required an analysis of whether the signs used (on vehicles, packaging, and websites) were identical or similar to the registered marks, whether they were used in relation to identical or similar goods/services, and whether such use resulted in a likelihood of confusion among the Singaporean public.
• Passing Off: Independent of the statutory trade mark claims, the court had to decide if the defendants had committed the tort of passing off. This involved the classic "trinity" test: (a) the existence of goodwill in the plaintiffs' business; (b) a misrepresentation by the defendants likely to lead the public to believe their goods/services were those of the plaintiffs; and (c) resulting damage to the plaintiffs.
• Breach of the 2011 Deed: The court examined whether the defendants' activities in Singapore violated the restrictive covenants and settlement terms of the Deed. This issue turned on the interpretation of specific clauses intended to prevent the defendants from using the "DR. WHO" name in Singapore and from competing with the plaintiffs' established business.
• Unlawful Conspiracy: Both parties alleged that the other had engaged in a conspiracy to injure their respective businesses. The court had to determine if there was a combination of persons, an intent to injure, and the use of unlawful means that resulted in actual damage.
• Wrongful Detention of Labels: A minor but contested issue involved whether the defendants had wrongfully withheld physical labels belonging to the plaintiffs, which were intended for use on bottled water products.
• Counterclaim for Unpaid Goods: The court had to adjudicate the second defendant's claim for $143,665.80, representing the value of bottled water supplied to the plaintiffs for which payment was allegedly outstanding.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The court’s analysis was methodical, beginning with the trade mark infringement claims. Applying the framework established in Digi International v Teraoka Seiko Co, Ltd [2021] SGHC 165 and Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc [2014] 1 SLR 911, the court conducted a "step-by-step" assessment. First, it compared the marks. The registered mark was "DR. WHO," while the defendants used "DR. WHO" often accompanied by a quatrefoil-droplet device. The court found that the textual component "DR. WHO" was the dominant and distinctive element of both. Visually, the marks were highly similar. Aurally, they were identical. Conceptually, they both referred to the same distinctive name. The court noted that the addition of the quatrefoil device did not sufficiently distinguish the defendants' sign from the registered mark, citing Morny Ld’s Trade Marks, in the Matter of (1951) 68 RPC 131 to emphasize that the core identity remained the same.

Regarding the similarity of goods and services, the court found an exact match. Both parties were in the business of supplying bottled water and water dispensers. The court then turned to the "likelihood of confusion." It held that the average consumer in Singapore, seeing a delivery vehicle or a carton of water branded with "DR. WHO," would naturally assume it originated from the plaintiffs, given their long-standing presence in the market. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the Malaysian registration numbers on the vehicles would prevent confusion, noting that consumers do not typically scrutinize vehicle registration plates to determine the origin of a brand.

The court's analysis of "use in the course of trade" was particularly rigorous. For the vehicles, the court relied on Burberry Ltd v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd and anor [2019] 1 SLR 536, concluding that the prominent branding on the trucks constituted use of the mark in Singapore. Even if the vehicles were merely passing through or making deliveries from Malaysia, the visual impact on the Singaporean public amounted to a commercial use of the sign. For "the Cartons," the court found that their presence in Singapore, even if incidental to a cross-border transaction, served to identify the source of the goods to the Singaporean consumer, thus constituting infringement.

In addressing the passing off claim, the court found that the plaintiffs clearly possessed significant goodwill in Singapore. The "DR. WHO" name was synonymous with their business. The defendants' use of the same name constituted a misrepresentation. The court applied the reasoning in Amanresorts Ltd v Novelty Pte Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216, stating that the misrepresentation need not be intentional; it is the effect on the public that matters. The likelihood of confusion established in the trade mark analysis was sufficient to satisfy the misrepresentation element of passing off. Damage was inferred from the potential loss of sales and the dilution of the plaintiffs' brand exclusivity.

The breach of the Deed required a different analytical lens. The court applied the principles of contractual interpretation from Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 193, looking at the text of the Deed within its commercial context. The court found that the defendants had indeed breached the restrictive covenants. The Deed was intended to ensure the defendants did not use the "DR. WHO" name in Singapore. By operating branded vehicles and distributing branded cartons in Singapore, the defendants violated the "clean break" the Deed was meant to facilitate. The court dismissed the defendants' argument that the Deed only applied to "active" marketing, holding that any use of the mark in the prohibited territory constituted a breach.

On the issue of conspiracy, the court was less convinced. It noted that the threshold for proving an unlawful means conspiracy is high, requiring a combination of two or more persons and a predominant purpose to injure the claimant (citing EFT Holdings Inc v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 860). The court found that while the defendants had infringed trade marks and breached the Deed, there was insufficient evidence to show a concerted plan specifically designed to destroy the plaintiffs' business. The actions were seen more as aggressive (and legally non-compliant) commercial competition rather than a malicious conspiracy. Similarly, the plaintiffs' claim for wrongful detention of labels was dismissed due to a lack of concrete evidence regarding the specific labels held and the circumstances of their detention.

What Was the Outcome?

The court delivered a mixed but predominantly favorable judgment for the plaintiffs. The primary findings were that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs' registered trade marks and committed the tort of passing off through their use of the "DR. WHO" mark on commercial vehicles and product packaging within Singapore. Additionally, the court found the defendants in breach of the 2011 Deed.

The operative orders of the court were summarized as follows:

"I order an assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiffs’ successful claims for trade mark infringement and passing off. I also order that the sum of $143,665.80 is to be awarded to the second defendant as a result of its successful claim regarding its sale of bottled drinking water to the plaintiffs. I dismiss the other claims and counterclaims brought by the parties." (at [239])

The court granted the following specific reliefs:

• Injunctions: The defendants were restrained from further infringing the plaintiffs' trade marks and from engaging in passing off in Singapore. This included a prohibition on using the "DR. WHO" name or any similar sign on vehicles, packaging, or marketing materials directed at or visible in Singapore.
• Assessment of Damages: Rather than awarding a fixed sum immediately, the court ordered that the damages for trade mark infringement and passing off be assessed in a separate phase of the proceedings. The plaintiffs were given the option to choose between an account of profits or compensatory damages.
• Award to Second Defendant: The court upheld the second defendant's counterclaim for unpaid goods, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $143,665.80. This was based on evidence of deliveries made and the lack of proof of payment by the plaintiffs.
• Dismissal of Conspiracy Claims: Both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' claims for unlawful conspiracy were dismissed in their entirety due to insufficient evidence of the requisite intent and combination.
• Dismissal of Wrongful Detention Claim: The plaintiffs' claim regarding the detention of labels was dismissed.
• Costs: The court reserved the issue of costs for further submissions, noting the mixed success of the parties. The judge indicated that the conduct of the parties and the relative success on various issues would be factored into the final costs order.

The court also noted the fourth defendant's compliance with the ACRA direction to change its name, which rendered the prayer for a mandatory injunction on that specific point moot, although it remained relevant to the overall finding of a pattern of infringing behavior.

Why Does This Case Matter?

The judgment in Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd is a vital authority for practitioners dealing with cross-border brand management and the enforcement of IP rights in the face of historical corporate ties. It clarifies several key areas of law that are frequently encountered in the Singaporean commercial landscape.

First, it reinforces the territorial nature of trade mark rights. The fact that the defendants had a legitimate business and potentially even trade mark rights in Malaysia did not grant them a "passport" to use those marks in Singapore. The court's focus on the perception of the "average consumer" in Singapore (citing Hearst Holdings Inc v AVELA Inc [2014] EWHC 439) serves as a reminder that IP protection is focused on the local market. Practitioners must advise clients that branding on vehicles or packaging that crosses the border can trigger infringement, regardless of where the business is headquartered.

Second, the case provides a robust application of the "step-by-step" test for trade mark infringement. By finding that the addition of a quatrefoil-droplet device did not negate the similarity to the "DR. WHO" mark, the court signaled that it will look to the "dominant and distinctive" features of a mark rather than getting bogged down in minor peripheral differences. This is consistent with the approach in Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA [2013] 1 SLR 531. It warns defendants that "dressing up" an infringing mark with additional graphics is unlikely to provide a successful defense if the core identity remains confusingly similar.

Third, the judgment highlights the critical importance of clarity in settlement deeds. The 2011 Deed was intended to be a "clean break," yet its perceived ambiguity led to over a decade of further litigation. The court's willingness to interpret the Deed's restrictive covenants broadly to encompass any use of the mark in Singapore—even passive use on vehicles—demonstrates that Singapore courts will seek to give effect to the commercial purpose of a settlement. Practitioners should ensure that such deeds explicitly define what constitutes "use" and "competition," particularly in the digital and mobile age.

Fourth, the dismissal of the conspiracy claims underscores the difficulty of proving "unlawful means" when the underlying acts are already covered by specific statutory or common law regimes like trade mark infringement. The court's reliance on EFT Holdings suggests a reluctance to allow conspiracy claims to be used as a "catch-all" for aggressive commercial behavior unless a clear, independent intent to injure through a combination of parties can be proven. This provides a level of protection for businesses against overreaching tort claims in the context of standard IP disputes.

Finally, the award of $143,665.80 on the counterclaim for unpaid goods serves as a practical reminder that IP litigation does not happen in a vacuum. Contractual debts and operational disputes often run parallel to IP claims, and a successful plaintiff in an infringement suit may still find themselves liable for outstanding commercial obligations. This case exemplifies the need for a holistic strategy in commercial litigation that accounts for all facets of the parties' relationship.

Practice Pointers

• Territorial Audits: When a client operates in both Singapore and Malaysia, conduct a thorough audit of all mobile assets (vehicles) and packaging. Ensure that branding used in one jurisdiction does not infringe on rights held by another party in the neighboring jurisdiction, even if the brands share a common history.
• Dominant Feature Analysis: In trade mark clearance, focus on the dominant textual elements. As seen in this case, adding a logo or device (like the quatrefoil) to a mark that contains a highly distinctive name like "DR. WHO" is rarely sufficient to avoid a finding of similarity.
• Drafting "Clean Break" Clauses: When drafting settlement deeds involving IP, avoid vague terms like "interfering with business." Instead, use specific prohibitions: "The Defendant shall not permit any vehicle bearing the Mark to enter the Territory," or "The Defendant shall geo-block the Website from users in the Territory."
• Evidence Gathering: The use of Private Investigators was pivotal in this case. Practitioners should consider commissioning PI reports to document the physical presence of infringing goods or vehicles, as this provides concrete "use in the course of trade" evidence that digital evidence alone might lack.
• ACRA as a Tool: The plaintiffs successfully leveraged s 27 of the Companies Act to force a name change. Practitioners should remember that administrative remedies through ACRA can be a faster and more cost-effective way to deal with confusingly similar company names than full-scale litigation.
• Counterclaim Management: Always review the client's accounts payable before commencing IP litigation. A valid counterclaim for unpaid goods can offset damages and complicate the settlement dynamics, as seen with the $143,665.80 award to the second defendant.
• Average Consumer Perspective: When arguing likelihood of confusion, focus on the "imperfect recollection" of the average consumer. The court's rejection of the "Malaysian license plate" defense shows that consumers are not expected to be detectives; they rely on the most prominent brand signals.
• Conspiracy Thresholds: Be cautious when pleading unlawful means conspiracy. Unless there is evidence of a "predominant purpose" to injure that goes beyond mere commercial gain or the infringement itself, the court is likely to dismiss the claim, potentially leading to adverse costs consequences.

Subsequent Treatment

As a relatively recent decision from May 2023, the subsequent treatment of [2023] SGHC 156 in later judgments is still developing. However, the ratio of the case—that the use of a mark on commercial vehicles and packaging within Singapore constitutes trade mark infringement and passing off despite the defendant's foreign origins—is expected to be cited in future "cross-border" IP disputes. The court's detailed application of the Staywell test and its interpretation of "use in the course of trade" regarding mobile assets provide a clear precedent for how Singapore courts handle the physical encroachment of foreign-branded goods into the local market. The case stands as a firm reminder that historical corporate links do not provide a defense to modern-day IP infringement.

Legislation Referenced

• Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), s 27(1), s 27(2), s 27(4), s 27(4)(a), s 27(4)(b), s 27(4)(d), s 27(4)(e)
• Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed), s 27, s 31(2), s 31(5), s 33(1), s 33(2), s 34(2)(a)

Cases Cited

• Digi International v Teraoka Seiko Co, Ltd [2021] SGHC 165 (Applied)
• Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc [2014] 1 SLR 911 (Followed)
• Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA [2013] 1 SLR 531 (Applied)
• Burberry Ltd v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd and anor [2019] 1 SLR 536 (Referred to)
• City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton Malletier [2010] 1 SLR 382 (Referred to)
• Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 941 (Referred to)
• Calvin Klein, Inc and anor v HS International Pte Ltd and others [2016] 5 SLR 1183 (Considered)
• Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712 (Referred to)
• Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections Pte Ltd [2006] 4 SLR(R) 369 (Referred to)
• Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and another [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216 (Applied)
• Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 86 (Referred to)
• Tuitiongenius Pte Ltd v Toh Yew Keat [2021] 1 SLR 231 (Referred to)
• The Singapore Professional Golfers’ Association v Chen Eng Waye and others [2013] 2 SLR 495 (Referred to)
• CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 1 SLR(R) 975 (Referred to)
• The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 517 (Referred to)
• Doctor’s Associates Inc v Lim Eng Wah (trading as SUBWAY NICHE) [2012] 3 SLR 193 (Referred to)
• Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and anor [2013] 4 SLR 193 (Applied)
• Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine and others [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474 (Referred to)
• Lim Teck Cheng v Wyno Marine Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 543 (Referred to)
• PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and anor [2017] 2 SLR 129 (Referred to)
• EFT Holdings Inc and anor v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anor [2014] 1 SLR 860 (Applied)
• Simgood Pte Ltd v MLC Shipbuilding Sdn Bhd and others [2016] 1 SLR 1129 (Referred to)
• Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd v Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 574 (Referred to)
• Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing [2015] 3 SLR 732 (Referred to)
• Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc [2017] EWHC 231 (Referred to)
• Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd and anor [2006] EWHC 403 (Referred to)
• Hearst Holdings Inc v AVELA Inc [2014] EWHC 439 (Referred to)
• 800-FLOWERS Trade Mark [2000] FSR 697 (Referred to)
• Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1834 (Referred to)
• Reed Executive plc and another v Reed Business Information Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 159 (Referred to)
• Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v BMW Telecommunications Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 411 (Referred to)
• Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer plc [2013] EWHC 1484 (Referred to)
• The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Muller & Co’s Margarine, Limited [1901] AC 217 (Referred to)
• Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting [2015] UKSC 31 (Referred to)
• Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments [1996] AC 514 (Referred to)
• Morny Ld’s Trade Marks, in the Matter of (1951) 68 RPC 131 (Referred to)
• A G Spalding & Bros v A W Gamage Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273 (Referred to)

Source Documents

• Original Judgment PDF (eLitigation CDN)
• Case Page on eLitigation