Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 15
- Title: Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Decision: 21 May 2025
- Originating Claim No: 370 of 2022
- Judgment Type: Account of profits inquiry following summary judgment in passing off
- Judges: Assistant Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Triple D Trading Pte Ltd
- Legal Areas: Intellectual Property — trade marks and trade names; passing off; remedies; account of profits
- Key Prior Proceedings: (1) Invalidation of defendant’s “COFAN” mark for bad faith: HC/S 464/2021; (2) Summary judgment for passing off: HC/SUM 4552/2022; (3) Disclosure application: HC/SUM 960/2024
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Act (Cap 322, 2005 Rev Ed) — s 7(6)
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2011] SGHC 268; [2015] SGHC 105; [2021] SGHC 33; [2023] SGCA 45; [2025] SGHCR 15
- Judgment Length: 48 pages; 13,983 words
Summary
This decision concerns the quantification stage of a passing off claim in which the plaintiff, Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd (“Fanco”), had already obtained summary judgment against the defendant, Triple D Trading Pte Ltd (“Triple D”). The earlier liability finding was closely linked to a prior trade mark invalidation: Triple D’s “COFAN” trade mark registration had been expunged on the ground of bad faith. After liability was established, the court was tasked with determining the monetary relief by way of an account of profits, following Fanco’s election.
The assistant registrar held that Triple D was liable to pay Fanco $316,590.18 as profits made in the relevant period from acts of passing off. A central difficulty was evidential: Triple D’s disclosure of revenue and costs was largely unsupported by source documents, and the court had to perform a “judicial estimation” of profits based on the limited material available. The decision therefore illustrates both the remedial purpose of an account of profits (disgorgement of unjust enrichment rather than punishment) and the practical evidential burdens that arise when the defendant’s records are incomplete or missing.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Fanco and Triple D are both companies selling ceiling fans in Singapore. Fanco was incorporated in May 2013 but had operated in the fan business since around 2002 through a partnership. Its founders and only shareholders are Mr Quek Lip Ngee and Mr Lim Boon Lee. Fanco owns the “FANCO” mark in Class 11. Triple D was incorporated in June 2017, and its sole director and shareholder is Mr Phua Kian Chey Colin, a former employee of Fanco who worked for the claimant from 2009 until the claimant’s incorporation and continued as a sales and marketing manager until December 2016.
In August 2019, Fanco launched a new line of fans bearing the sign “CO-FAN”. The first model was “E-Lite”, and a second model launched in November 2019 was “HELI” (the judgment text indicates “HELI” as the second model). This branding set the stage for the later dispute over consumer confusion and misrepresentation in the market.
Triple D registered a “COFAN” trade mark (Trade Mark No. 40201904164S) in Classes 9 and 11 on 27 February 2019. Triple D also launched a “COFAN” brand of ceiling fans bearing the model name “HALI” in April or May 2021. In the trade mark invalidation proceedings (HC/S 464/2021), Gill J held that Triple D’s registration was made in bad faith and ordered expungement of the “COFAN” mark. This invalidation judgment was a significant contextual fact for the passing off claim, as it undermined Triple D’s entitlement to use the sign in the marketplace.
After expungement, Fanco commenced the present suit (Originating Claim No. 370 of 2022) on 2 November 2022. Fanco alleged passing off arising from Triple D’s advertising, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of ceiling fans under the sign “COFAN” and bearing the model name “HALI”, which Fanco contended were being passed off as Fanco’s fans or as being connected or associated with Fanco. Fanco sought an injunction and either damages or an account of profits. On 29 September 2023, Fanco obtained summary judgment in passing off (HC/SUM 4552/2022). The court granted an injunction and ordered an inquiry as to damages or, at Fanco’s election, an account of profits.
Fanco elected an account of profits. The inquiry was complicated by the paucity of documentary evidence. Triple D provided an unaudited “Summary Breakdown” of sales of “COFAN” fans in Singapore from 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2022, stating total revenue of $235,448.62 for 1,558 fans, costs of $144,894, and gross profit of $90,554.62. However, Triple D did not provide source documents supporting the Summary Breakdown, claiming that the documents were misplaced and lost during office shifting. Fanco challenged the reliability of the Summary Breakdown, including the omission of revenue from earlier sales (23 April 2021 to 31 July 2021) said to total $124,500.40 for 793 fans.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal issue was the quantification of profits for the account of profits remedy. Having already established liability for passing off, the court had to determine what profits Triple D had made from the wrongful conduct and whether, and to what extent, those profits should be disgorged for the relevant period.
A second issue concerned evidential reliability and the method of estimation. The court needed to decide how to approach incomplete or unreliable financial information, particularly where the defendant’s revenue and costs were within its knowledge and control, but documentary proof was missing. The question was not merely whether Triple D had made money, but how the court should calculate “actual profits” (financial gains) in a judicially estimative manner.
Finally, the court had to address the scope of allowable deductions. In an account of profits, the court typically considers costs and expenses that are properly attributable to the wrongful sales. The judgment indicates detailed analysis of manufacturing costs, transport and logistics, rental and hire vehicle costs, staff costs, and other items such as fans gifted to customers and corporate tax. The legal issue was therefore how to treat these categories in calculating net profits for disgorgement.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The assistant registrar began by restating the remedial purpose of an account of profits in passing off. The court emphasised that the remedy aims to disgorge the benefits the tortfeasor ought not to retain. It is not punitive; rather, it is concerned with preventing unjust enrichment. This framing is consistent with the general principles articulated in authorities such as Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd and another, where the High Court of Australia described the account of profits as a mechanism to prevent unjust enrichment rather than to punish.
The court then addressed the evidential challenge inherent in profit inquiries. While the claimant may struggle to adduce evidence of the defendant’s revenue and costs, those figures are generally within the defendant’s knowledge. Accordingly, the court must do the best it can with the material before it, using “judicial estimation of the available indications”. The assistant registrar relied on the approach reflected in cases such as Bosch Corp v Wiedson International (S) Pte Ltd and others, where the court recognised that estimation is often necessary when documentary evidence is incomplete.
In this case, the court found that the difficulty was amplified by the “paucity of documentary evidence” of Triple D’s revenue and costs. Triple D’s Summary Breakdown was unaudited and unsupported by source documents. The defendant’s explanation was that the source documents were misplaced and lost during office shifting. The court therefore had to assess the reliability of the Summary Breakdown and determine what weight to give it, if any, in calculating profits.
The judgment indicates that the court scrutinised the Summary Breakdown’s completeness. Fanco argued that it omitted revenue of $124,500.40 derived from the sale of 793 “COFAN” fans from 23 April 2021 to 31 July 2021. The assistant registrar’s analysis of the “material period” and the “reliability of the summary breakdown” suggests that the court considered whether the Summary Breakdown captured the full relevant timeframe of passing off and whether the figures were consistent with other evidence. Where the defendant’s figures were incomplete or unsupported, the court was prepared to adjust the calculation rather than accept the Summary Breakdown at face value.
On methodology, the court appears to have adopted a structured approach: first, determine revenue attributable to the passing off period; second, determine costs and expenses that can be deducted to arrive at net profits; and third, account for items that may not be properly deductible or that require careful allocation. The judgment text shows that the court analysed manufacturing costs, transport and logistic costs, rental, hire vehicle and staff costs, and also considered whether fans were gifted to customers and how corporate tax should be treated in the profit computation.
Although the excerpt provided does not include the full numerical reasoning, the headings in the judgment demonstrate that the assistant registrar treated each cost category as a distinct question. For example, rental costs and hire vehicle costs were likely assessed for attribution to the wrongful sales and for whether they were reasonable and actually incurred. Staff costs were similarly evaluated, likely requiring an allocation between general overhead and costs directly connected to the production, distribution, and sale of the infringing/passing off goods. The court also had to consider “fans gifted to customers”, which can raise issues about whether such items represent marketing expenses, cost of goods sold, or something else that affects net profit.
Ultimately, the court concluded that it was appropriate to estimate profits using the available indications, while correcting for unreliability and incompleteness. The assistant registrar found that the defendant’s liable profits amounted to $316,590.18. This figure represents the court’s best assessment of the net financial gains Triple D made from passing off during the relevant period, after accounting for costs and expenses that were properly attributable, and after discounting or adjusting for evidential gaps.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered Triple D to pay Fanco $316,590.18 in account of profits for the acts of passing off. This sum reflects the disgorgement of profits the court found Triple D had made from the wrongful conduct, calculated through judicial estimation in light of the limited documentary evidence.
Practically, the decision provides a quantified monetary remedy following the earlier injunction and summary judgment. It also clarifies that where a defendant’s financial records are missing or unsupported, the court may still arrive at a profit figure, but it will do so by scrutinising reliability and applying estimation principles rather than accepting unaudited summaries uncritically.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it demonstrates how the Singapore courts approach the account of profits remedy in passing off disputes, particularly at the quantification stage. The decision reinforces that the remedy is aimed at preventing unjust enrichment and disgorging benefits, not punishing the defendant. However, it also shows that the court will not allow evidential deficiencies to defeat the remedial purpose; instead, it will estimate profits based on the best available material.
For trade mark and passing off litigation, the case also highlights the interplay between trade mark invalidation and passing off. Although the account of profits inquiry is distinct from the trade mark validity question, the prior finding of bad faith in expunging the “COFAN” mark provides important contextual support for the court’s view of the defendant’s conduct. This can influence how the court evaluates credibility and the overall narrative of market conduct.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the decision underscores the importance of disclosure and record-keeping. Triple D’s inability to produce source documents supporting its Summary Breakdown led to a judicial estimation exercise and a profit award substantially exceeding the unaudited gross profit figure it initially disclosed. For defendants, this is a cautionary lesson: where financial evidence is missing, the court may infer that the claimant’s challenge has merit and may adjust calculations accordingly. For claimants, it illustrates that even where documentary proof is incomplete, a structured approach to revenue and cost estimation can still yield a meaningful monetary award.
Legislation Referenced
- Trade Marks Act (Cap 322, 2005 Rev Ed) — s 7(6) (bad faith ground for invalidation)
Cases Cited
- Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd and another [1993] 179 CLR 101
- Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd and another (First Currency Choice Pte Ltd, third party) [2011] SGHC 268
- Bosch Corp v Wiedson International (S) Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2015] SGHC 105
- [2021] SGHC 33
- [2023] SGCA 45
- Triple D Trading Pte Ltd v Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd [2023] 3 SLR 1417
- Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 15
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCR 15 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.