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
- Judges: Assistant Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Triple D Trading Pte Ltd
- Legal Area: Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names; Passing off; Remedies; Account of profits
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Act (Cap 322, 2005 Rev Ed)
- Key Prior Proceedings Mentioned: HC/S 464/2021 (invalidity/bad faith); HC/OC 370/2022 (passing off and remedies); HC/SUM 4552/2022 (summary judgment on liability); HC/SUM 960/2024 (disclosure for election between damages and account of profits)
- Related/Referenced Decisions: Triple D Trading Pte Ltd v Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd [2023] 3 SLR 1417 (invalidation judgment); 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
- Judgment Length: 48 pages; 13,983 words
Summary
This decision concerns the quantification of monetary relief following a finding of passing off by Triple D Trading Pte Ltd (“Triple D”) in relation to ceiling fans marketed under the sign “COFAN” and the model name “HALI”. The claimant, Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd (“Fanco”), had previously succeeded in invalidating Triple D’s “COFAN” trade mark registration on the ground of bad faith. After liability in passing off was established by summary judgment, the court proceeded to an account of profits inquiry, focusing on what profits Triple D had actually made from the infringing/passing off conduct.
The assistant registrar emphasised that an account of profits is not punitive; it is aimed at disgorging the benefits unjustly retained by the tortfeasor. Where documentary evidence of revenue and costs is sparse or unreliable, the court must make a “judicial estimation” based on the available indications. Applying that approach, the court found Triple D liable to pay Fanco $316,590.18 as an account of profits for the relevant period.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Fanco and Triple D are both companies engaged in the sale of fans in Singapore. Fanco was incorporated in May 2013, but its business history dates back to around 2002 through a partnership known as “Fanco Fan Marketing”. Its founders and only shareholders are Mr Quek Lip Ngee and Mr Lim Boon Lee. Fanco owns the “FANCO” mark in Class 11. Mr Quek managed Singapore operations, while Mr Lim managed Malaysia operations.
Triple D was incorporated in June 2017. Its sole director and shareholder is Mr Phua Kian Chey Colin. Mr Phua had previously worked for Fanco from 2009 until Fanco’s incorporation, continuing as a sales and marketing manager until December 2016. After incorporation, Mr Phua became the sole director and shareholder of Triple D.
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”. Triple D later registered a “COFAN” trade mark (Trade Mark No. 40201904164S) in classes 9 and 11 on 27 February 2019. Triple D’s “COFAN” brand of ceiling fans, bearing the model name “HALI”, was launched in April or May 2021. Apart from selling “BESTAR” fans, Triple D marketed and sold “COFAN” fans during the relevant period.
Before the passing off suit, Triple D’s “COFAN” trade mark registration was invalidated. In HC/S 464/2021, Gill J ordered expungement of the “COFAN” mark from the register on 16 September 2022, finding bad faith under s 7(6) of the Trade Marks Act. Following that, Fanco commenced HC/OC 370/2022 on 2 November 2022, alleging passing off. Fanco sought an injunction restraining Triple D from passing off fans as Fanco’s fans (or as connected with/associated with Fanco), and sought either damages or, at its election, an account of profits. On 29 September 2023, Fanco obtained summary judgment on liability for passing off, and the court granted an injunction and ordered an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, with costs reserved pending the inquiry.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal issue in this decision was the quantification of profits to be disgorged under an account of profits. Although liability in passing off had already been established, the court still had to determine what profits Triple D had made “in respect of” the passing off acts, and how those profits should be calculated in the absence of reliable documentary evidence.
A second issue concerned evidential reliability and the burden of proof in an account of profits inquiry. The court had to assess whether Triple D’s disclosed figures—an unaudited “Summary Breakdown” of sales, costs, and gross profit—could be accepted, and whether Triple D’s explanation for missing source documents (alleged loss during office shifting) undermined its ability to substantiate revenue and costs.
Finally, the court had to determine the appropriate methodology for calculating revenue and deducting costs and expenses. This included whether certain categories of costs (manufacturing, transport/logistics, rental/hire vehicle/staff costs, corporate tax, and fans allegedly gifted to customers) were properly attributable to the passing off conduct and therefore deductible in computing profits.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by restating the remedial purpose of an account of profits. It is designed to disgorge benefits which the tortfeasor ought not to retain, preventing unjust enrichment rather than punishing wrongdoing. In this context, the court’s focus is on the profits actually made by the tortfeasor—meaning all financial gains—rather than on hypothetical profits or a purely compensatory measure. The assistant registrar relied on the conceptual framing from Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corporation Pty Ltd and another, and the Singapore approach in Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd, which clarifies that the court is concerned with actual profits.
However, the court acknowledged a practical difficulty common to account of profits inquiries: evidence of revenue and costs typically lies within the defendant’s knowledge and control. Where the defendant does not provide adequate documentation, the court cannot simply refuse relief to the claimant. Instead, the court must do the best it can on the whole of the material before it, using judicial estimation based on available indications. This approach was supported by Bosch Corp v Wiedson International (S) Pte Ltd, which describes the need for “a judicial estimation of the available indications” when documentary proof is incomplete.
On the evidence, Triple D had disclosed an unaudited Summary Breakdown for sales of “COFAN” fans in Singapore from 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2022. The Summary Breakdown stated total revenue of $235,448.62 from 1,558 fans, costs of $144,894, and gross profit of $90,554.62. Triple D did not disclose source documents supporting the Summary Breakdown, claiming the documents were misplaced during shifting of the bundle of affidavits pre-election discovery volume 1. The court treated this lack of underlying documentation as a significant evidential weakness.
Further, the court considered that the Summary Breakdown did not include revenue of $124,500.40 derived from sales of 793 “COFAN” fans from 23 April 2021 to 31 July 2021. This omission mattered because the relevant period for passing off was not limited to August 2021 onwards. The court therefore had to determine whether it could rely on the Summary Breakdown as a complete and accurate record of revenue and costs for the passing off period, or whether it needed to reconstruct the account of profits using other evidence and reasonable assumptions.
In addition to revenue and costs, the court analysed the categories of expenses claimed by Triple D. The judgment extract indicates a structured approach to costs and disbursements, including manufacturing costs, transport and logistic costs, rental costs, hire vehicle costs, staff costs, fans gifted to customers, and corporate tax. The court’s analysis would have required assessing whether each category was (i) actually incurred, (ii) reasonably attributable to the passing off sales, and (iii) properly deductible in computing profits. The court also had to consider whether any claimed deductions were unsupported or inconsistent with the evidence, particularly given the defendant’s failure to produce source documents.
Another important evidential context was the disclosure dispute that arose when Fanco elected for an account of profits. Fanco filed SUM 960/2024 seeking further disclosure so it could make an informed election between damages and account of profits. The assistant registrar granted disclosure on 28 May 2024, ordering Triple D to disclose documents and information relating to sales, costs, and expenses attributable to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of “COFAN” fans sold in Singapore. Triple D contested disclosure, and later deposed that requested documents were misplaced and lost during office shifting. The court’s treatment of this explanation likely informed its willingness to accept or reject the Summary Breakdown and any claimed deductions.
Ultimately, after carefully considering the evidence and submissions, the assistant registrar concluded that the defendant was liable to pay $316,590.18 to the claimant in account of profits for the acts of passing off. While the extract does not reproduce the full computational steps, the reasoning reflects a consistent theme: where the defendant’s accounting materials are incomplete, unreliable, or unsupported, the court will not allow evidential gaps to defeat the claimant’s entitlement to disgorgement. Instead, it will estimate profits using the best available indications, while scrutinising claimed revenues and deductions.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered Triple D to pay Fanco $316,590.18 as an account of profits in respect of the passing off conduct. This amount represents the profits the court found Triple D had unjustly retained from selling “COFAN” fans marketed under the relevant sign and model name during the material period.
Practically, the decision confirms that once liability for passing off is established and an account of profits is elected, the defendant cannot rely on unaudited or unsupported summaries to cap liability. Where source documents are missing or unreliable, the court will still quantify profits, using judicial estimation, and will scrutinise claimed costs and expenses for attribution and evidential support.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts approach account of profits inquiries in passing off matters, especially where the defendant’s financial evidence is thin. The decision reinforces that an account of profits is grounded in unjust enrichment principles and disgorgement, not punishment. Yet it also demonstrates that the court will not permit the evidential burden to become a shield for the defendant: the court will estimate profits based on available indications and will critically assess the reliability of the defendant’s accounting submissions.
From a trade mark and passing off perspective, the case also shows the interplay between trade mark invalidation and passing off remedies. Although the invalidation of Triple D’s “COFAN” mark was determined in separate proceedings, the passing off suit proceeded on the basis of the defendant’s conduct in marketing and selling fans under the “COFAN” sign. The remedial consequence is substantial: an account of profits can produce a monetary award that goes beyond injunctions and into disgorgement of commercial gains.
For litigators, the decision underscores the importance of documentary discipline in IP disputes. Defendants should anticipate that courts may require source documents to support revenue and cost calculations. If documents are missing, the court may still quantify profits, but the defendant risks losing credibility and having deductions disallowed or reduced. Conversely, claimants should consider early disclosure and election strategy, because the ability to challenge the reliability of financial summaries can materially affect the final disgorgement figure.
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
- Triple D Trading Pte Ltd v Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd [2023] 3 SLR 1417
- [2011] SGHC 268
- [2015] SGHC 105
- [2021] SGHC 33
- [2023] SGCA 45
- [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.