Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 35
- Title: Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
- Suit No: Suit No 600 of 2020
- Proceeding: Assessment of Damages No 4 of 2025
- Judges: AR Gan Kam Yuin
- Judgment Reserved: 1 October 2025
- Plaintiffs/Applicants: Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd (formerly known as Cana Services Pte. Ltd.); Dr Who Global Watertech (S) Pte. Ltd.; Dr Who Laboratories (S) Pte. Ltd. (formerly known as New Global Fluid Engineering & Machinery Pte. Ltd.)
- Defendants/Respondents: Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd; Oo Tim Wee; Low Siew Eng; Dr Who (S) Pte. Ltd.
- Legal Area: Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names; Remedies — Damages and account of profits
- Statutes Referenced: Evidence Act; Evidence Act 1893; Trade Marks Act; Trade Marks Act 1998
- Prior Reported Decisions in the Same Litigation: Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others [2023] SGHC 156 (liability); and related appellate proceedings (orders varied but key findings not reversed)
- Other Cited Authority: [2024] SGHC 163
- Judgment Length: 39 pages; 10,821 words
Summary
This High Court decision concerns the assessment of damages and/or an account of profits following earlier findings of trade mark infringement and passing off in the same dispute between the parties. The court had already determined liability for multiple infringing acts involving the “DR. WHO” branding and related signs used by the defendants in Singapore, including on a delivery vehicle, on product packaging sold through IKEA, and on the defendants’ websites and corporate name. The present judgment focuses on quantifying the financial consequences of those infringements.
Applying principles governing damages and account of profits in trade mark and passing off contexts, the court scrutinised the plaintiffs’ evidence of loss of profits and the defendants’ evidence relevant to profit computation. The court accepted that the plaintiffs’ expert approach was designed to avoid double-counting between trade mark infringement and passing off. However, the court ultimately found that the plaintiffs did not prove certain categories of loss of profits for one of the infringing acts, and therefore could not obtain royalties for that category. The court then proceeded to determine what profits (if any) were to be accounted for in relation to other infringing acts, including deductions for returned goods, delivery charges, and administrative expenses.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The first plaintiff, Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd (formerly Cana Services Pte. Ltd.), was engaged in the supply of five-gallon bottled water, the leasing and placement of water dispensers, and initially also provided bottled water bearing customers’ marks. The second plaintiff supplied and distributed bottled water and later took over the business of providing bottled water bearing customers’ marks. The third plaintiff, incorporated for research and development, subsequently entered the direct piping sector to support the plaintiffs’ other businesses.
The defendants’ corporate and personal structure reflected a shared business history with the plaintiffs. The first defendant, Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd, was incorporated by the second defendant, Mr Oo Tim Wee, and was involved in dealing in mineral and aerated water and providing integrated logistics services. The third defendant, Ms Low Siew Eng, and individuals including Mr Koh and Ms Tan were initial shareholders of the first defendant. The first plaintiff later sold its shareholding in the first defendant to the remaining shareholders. The fourth defendant, Dr Who (S) Pte Ltd, was incorporated by the second and third defendants to engage in wholesale trade and transportation support.
Intellectual property rights formed the core of the dispute. In 2004, the first plaintiff registered the “DR. WHO” mark in Singapore in class 32 for bottled water and related non-medical beverages. In 2012, it registered an additional mark comprising “DR. WHO” with a four water droplets in a quatrefoil shape at the top right corner (the “DR. WHO quatrefoil device mark”) in class 11 for water treatment units and class 40 for treatment of water. In 2016, Mr Oo registered in Malaysia a corresponding mark containing “DR. WHO” with the quatrefoil-water droplet design element.
After disputes between the parties over 2013 to 2016, the parties entered a Deed of Settlement in 2017 envisaging a parting of ways and governing intellectual property held by the respective entities. Around 2018 to 2019, the plaintiffs discovered that the first defendant used a truck and trailer in Singapore (Vehicle A, registration number JTF 7514) bearing a sign featuring the “DR. WHO” branding and the quatrefoil device sign, together with the defendants’ contact details and the website “www.drwho.com.my”. In 2020, the plaintiffs further discovered that IKEA stores in Singapore were selling 500ml cartons of drinking water bearing the “DRICKSVATTEN” sign but also bearing the defendants’ “Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd” branding and the defendants’ contact details and website “www.drwho.asia”.
The plaintiffs also examined the defendants’ websites. The “www.drwho.com.my” website contained a title “DR. WHO (M) Sdn Bhd”, a banner bearing the DR. WHO quatrefoil device sign, and a link to the “www.drwho.asia” website. The “www.drwho.asia” website had a similar design, but its meta-title bore the name of the fourth defendant, and it included a notice at the bottom of the webpage: “© 2020 DR. WHO (S) PTE LTD”. The court noted that meta-titles do not appear in the webpage content itself but indicate the topic of the webpage and often appear in browser tabs and search engine results.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The assessment issues were framed around five questions. First, the court had to determine the first plaintiff’s loss of profits in relation to the first defendant’s use of the DR. WHO quatrefoil device sign and the “www.drwho.com.my” sign on Vehicle A (Issue 1). This required the court to consider whether the plaintiffs could show actual loss of sales and whether the infringing use caused any diminution in the plaintiffs’ profits, including whether any “royalties” could be awarded where actual loss was not proven.
Second, the court had to determine what profits the defendants were to account for in relation to the first defendant’s use of the “www.drwho.asia” sign on the IKEA cartons (Issue 2). This involved evaluating the defendants’ profits and applying appropriate deductions, including deductions for returned cartons, delivery charges, road tax and insurance, and administrative expenses, as well as a payment made to a third party (Picco) that the defendants sought to deduct.
Third, the court had to determine what profits the defendants were to account for in relation to the first defendant’s display of the DR. WHO quatrefoil device sign and the two meta-title signs on the “www.drwho.com.my” and “www.drwho.asia” websites (Issue 3). Fourth, it had to determine what profits were to be accounted for in relation to the use of the fourth defendant’s name “DR.WHO (S) Pte Ltd” (Issue 4). Finally, the court had to address whether the expert’s findings on Issue 3 implied that there was no loss of profits under Issue 1 and no profits to be accounted for under Issue 2 (Issue 5).
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting the context: the liability findings had already been made in earlier proceedings, and the present stage was confined to quantification. The judge emphasised that the factual background and parties were fully set out in the earlier liability judgment, and only those facts necessary for the assessment issues were recounted. This approach is consistent with the procedural structure in IP litigation where liability is determined first and remedies are assessed later.
On the evidence, the plaintiffs called Ms Tan as a witness of fact and Mr Kon as an expert witness. The defendants’ sole witness was Mr Oo. The plaintiffs’ expert was a qualified chartered valuer and appraiser and chartered accountant with more than 35 years of experience, and the defendants did not challenge his qualifications or expertise. Importantly, the defendants did not adduce any expert evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ expert report. The court therefore treated the expert report as unchallenged in terms of competence, but still assessed whether the underlying evidential requirements for particular heads of relief were met.
A key analytical theme was the avoidance of double-counting. The expert explained that his opinion on each category of damages or profits included both trade mark infringement and passing off impacts, because the financial impact of the two causes of action would overlap. The court accepted that this was an appropriate methodological safeguard. However, methodological care did not eliminate the plaintiffs’ burden to prove the factual prerequisites for each category of relief, particularly where the law requires proof of loss rather than mere infringement.
For Issue 1, the court examined whether the plaintiffs proved loss of profits attributable to the use of the DR. WHO quatrefoil device sign and the “www.drwho.com.my” sign on Vehicle A. The court’s analysis was structured around multiple sub-issues. It found that the bottled water transported in Vehicle A did not carry the marks in question. It also found that the plaintiffs and defendants had not negotiated a licence for the use of Vehicle A, and that the defendants could have used other vehicles to deliver the products. Most significantly for damages, the court held that the plaintiffs did not prove loss of sales in bottled water resulting from the use of the marks on Vehicle A. The court further found that the plaintiffs did not prove that the bottled water sold by the defendants would otherwise have been sold by the plaintiffs. These findings meant that the plaintiffs could not establish actual loss of profits.
The court’s reasoning reflects a careful distinction between infringement and recoverable damages. Even where infringement is established, damages for loss of profits require a causal link between the infringing act and the plaintiff’s lost sales or profits. Where that causal link is not proven, the court will not infer loss merely from the existence of infringement. The court therefore concluded that since actual loss of profits was not proven, the plaintiffs could not be awarded royalties for this category. The court also found that the use of the marks on Vehicle A did not enhance the attractiveness of the bottled water transported inside Vehicle A, reinforcing the absence of a proven commercial impact.
For Issue 2, the court turned to account of profits in relation to the “www.drwho.asia” sign on the IKEA cartons. Account of profits is not the same as damages: it is concerned with the defendant’s profits attributable to the infringement, subject to deductions for expenses and other adjustments. The court considered the defendants’ general objection and then addressed specific deductions. It allowed a deduction of $9,715.75 for returned cartons, reflecting that returned goods would not generate net profits. It also considered delivery charges and allowed a deduction of $10,800 for delivery charges described as “TRANSPORT CHARGES”, as well as deductions for road tax and insurance and administrative expenses. The court also addressed a deduction of $1,884 paid to Picco. These deductions illustrate the court’s focus on net profit computation rather than gross revenue, and its willingness to accept expense deductions where they are properly evidenced and causally connected to the relevant profit stream.
For Issue 3, the court assessed profits to be accounted for in relation to the display of the DR. WHO quatrefoil device sign and the two meta-title signs on the defendants’ websites. The court treated website meta-titles as relevant because they can appear in browser tabs and search engine results, thereby functioning as part of the sign used to attract or identify business. The court’s approach indicates that the assessment of profits for online infringements may require attention to how the infringing sign operates in the market, even if it does not appear in the visible body of the webpage.
Issue 4 concerned the use of the fourth defendant’s corporate name “DR.WHO (S) Pte Ltd”. The court had to decide whether and to what extent that corporate name use generated profits attributable to the infringement. The analysis would have been informed by the earlier liability finding that such use constituted infringement of the DR WHO goods mark. At the remedies stage, however, the court still needed to connect the infringing use to profit generation and apply the appropriate accounting principles.
Finally, Issue 5 addressed the logical relationship between the expert’s findings on Issue 3 and the other issues. The court had to determine whether conclusions about profits attributable to website infringements implied that there was no loss of profits under Issue 1 and no profits to be accounted for under Issue 2. This required the court to ensure that the assessment of each category remained conceptually distinct: loss of profits (damages) is plaintiff-centric and requires proof of causation and lost sales, whereas account of profits is defendant-centric and requires proof of profits attributable to infringement, subject to deductions. The court’s treatment of Issue 5 underscores that expert findings in one category do not automatically negate relief in another category unless the evidential and legal requirements align.
What Was the Outcome?
The court’s outcome was to determine the quantum of damages and/or account of profits for each infringing act, based on the evidential record and the legal requirements for each head of relief. In relation to Vehicle A (Issue 1), the court found that the plaintiffs did not prove actual loss of profits and therefore could not obtain royalties for that category. This limited the plaintiffs’ recovery for that specific infringing act.
For the remaining issues, the court proceeded to compute profits to be accounted for, allowing specific deductions (including returns, transport charges, road tax and insurance, administrative expenses, and a payment to Picco) in relation to the IKEA carton sign and addressing website and corporate name infringements. The practical effect is that the plaintiffs’ recovery depended heavily on whether they could prove causation and loss for damages, and on whether the defendants’ net profits attributable to particular infringements could be calculated with appropriate expense deductions.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts handle the remedies stage after liability has been established in trade mark infringement and passing off cases. It reinforces that infringement alone does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to damages for loss of profits. The plaintiff must still prove actual loss and causation, including that the infringing conduct caused lost sales or reduced profits, and that the plaintiff would have made the sales absent the infringement.
At the same time, the judgment demonstrates the structured approach to account of profits, including the treatment of net profit and the allowance of deductions supported by evidence. The court’s willingness to deduct returned cartons, transport charges, and other expenses provides practical guidance on how defendants can mitigate account of profits and how plaintiffs should anticipate and challenge deduction claims.
Finally, the case highlights the evidential and analytical importance of online branding elements such as meta-titles. Even where meta-titles do not appear in the visible content of a webpage, they can still function as identifying signals in search and browser interfaces. For IP litigators, this supports a broader view of what constitutes relevant “use” of a sign in the digital environment and how such use may translate into profit attribution.
Legislation Referenced
- Evidence Act
- Evidence Act 1893
- Trade Marks Act
- Trade Marks Act 1998
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 156
- [2024] SGHC 163
- [2025] SGHCR 35
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCR 35 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.