Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGIPOS 6
- Court: Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
- Date: 2025-10-29
- Judges: Assistant Registrar Yong Yoke Ching
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wen Zhang Lao Mian Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Proprietor: Jiang Yazheng
- Legal Areas: Trade marks and trade names – Interlocutory Hearing
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Rules (Cap 332, 2008 Rev Ed)
- Cases Cited: [2025] SGIPOS 6
- Judgment Length: 9 pages, 3,661 words
Summary
This case concerns an application by Jiang Yazheng, the proprietor of a registered trade mark, for an extension of time to file a counter-statement in response to an application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark filed by Wen Zhang Lao Mian Pte Ltd. The Registrar initially granted the extension, but the applicant later objected on the basis that the proprietor had provided a false reason for the extension. The Registrar must now decide whether to revoke the extension of time granted to the proprietor.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The main proceedings concern an application by Wen Zhang Lao Mian Pte Ltd (the applicant) for a declaration of invalidity of a registered trade mark owned by Jiang Yazheng (the proprietor). The proprietor was required to file a counter-statement (Form HC6) within the initial deadline of 22 July 2025.
On 14 July 2025, the proprietor, through her then-agent Eagle Mind Pte Ltd, informed the Registrar that she had commenced a trade mark infringement suit against the applicant in the State Courts and requested the Registrar to suspend the invalidation proceedings. However, the Registrar responded on 16 July 2025 that the trade mark infringement suit was commenced in the wrong forum and that the invalidation proceedings would continue according to the applicable deadlines.
The proprietor then filed Form HC3 on 18 July 2025 to request an extension of time to file the counter-statement, stating the reason as "Our legal counsel is in the process of handling this matter with the High Court, and we will submit the required documents accordingly". Based on this reason, the Registrar granted the extension, moving the deadline from 22 July 2025 to 22 September 2025.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case is whether the extension of time granted to the proprietor to file her counter-statement should be revoked. This turns on whether the proprietor provided a false reason in her application for the extension of time.
Under the Trade Marks Rules, the Registrar may refuse to grant an extension of time if the proprietor fails to show a good and sufficient reason for the extension. The applicant argued that the reason provided by the proprietor's agent was false, as the proprietor had not actually commenced proceedings in the High Court as claimed.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Registrar examined the evidence provided by the applicant, which included an email exchange between the proprietor and her then-agent Eagle Mind Pte Ltd on 22 July 2025. This email exchange appeared to show that the reason given to the Registrar for the extension of time was false - the proprietor's agent had simply provided that reason in order to meet the formal requirements for obtaining an extension, even though it did not reflect the proprietor's actual intentions.
In the email exchange, the proprietor acknowledged that the information provided to the Registrar about commencing proceedings in the High Court was inaccurate, and that she in fact intended to continue the proceedings in the State Courts. The proprietor's agent also admitted that the reason given to the Registrar was "mainly for the purpose of submitting the HC3 form" and not an accurate reflection of the proprietor's actions.
The Registrar noted that under the Trade Marks Rules, an extension of time can be refused if the proprietor fails to show a good and sufficient reason. Based on the evidence provided, the Registrar found that the reason given by the proprietor's agent for the extension was false, and therefore did not constitute a good and sufficient reason.
What Was the Outcome?
The Registrar concluded that the extension of time granted to the proprietor to file her counter-statement should be revoked. The Registrar found that the proprietor had provided a false reason in her application for the extension of time, which was not a good and sufficient reason as required under the Trade Marks Rules.
As a result, the original deadline of 22 July 2025 for the proprietor to file her counter-statement was reinstated. The Registrar noted that the proprietor had attempted to file a counter-statement on 22 September 2025, but this was not in the proper Form HC6 and without the required fee, so it could not be accepted.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case highlights the importance of providing accurate and truthful information when applying for extensions of time in trade mark proceedings. The Registrar has made it clear that false or misleading reasons will not be accepted as a basis for granting an extension.
The case also demonstrates the Registrar's willingness to revoke an extension of time that has already been granted, if it is subsequently found that the reason provided was false. This serves as a warning to trade mark owners and their representatives to be diligent in their applications for extensions of time and to ensure that the information provided is accurate.
More broadly, this decision reinforces the Registrar's role in maintaining the integrity of trade mark registration procedures and ensuring that parties comply with the applicable rules and requirements. It sends a clear message that the Registrar will not tolerate attempts to circumvent the proper processes through the provision of false information.
Legislation Referenced
- Trade Marks Rules (Cap 332, 2008 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [2025] SGIPOS 6
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGIPOS 6 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.