Case Details
- Citation: Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AG [2003] SGHC 4
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2003-01-15
- Judges: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH
- Defendant/Respondent: Hugo Boss AG
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Service
- Statutes Referenced: Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Cases Cited: [2003] SGHC 4
- Judgment Length: 4 pages, 1,411 words
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the service of originating motions filed by the applicant, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, against the respondent, Hugo Boss AG. The applicant sought to rectify the Singapore register of trade marks by revoking the registration of two Hugo Boss trade marks. The respondent challenged the service of the originating motions, arguing that they were not properly served. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, had to determine whether the originating motions were duly served on the respondent outside of the jurisdiction.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicant, Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, a company incorporated in Germany, filed two originating motions in February 2002 to rectify the Singapore register of trade marks. The applicant sought to revoke the registration of two Hugo Boss trade marks, "HUGO BOSS" (Trade Mark No. T87/05010G) and "BOSS" (Trade Mark No. T74/59825G), on the grounds that the respondent had not put the marks to genuine use within five years of registration, or that such use had been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years with no proper reasons for non-use.
On 19 February 2002, the applicant was granted leave to serve the originating motions on the respondent, Hugo Boss AG, outside of the jurisdiction in Germany. The respondent subsequently filed two applications in October 2002 under Order 12 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, seeking declarations that the originating motions had not been duly served on them outside of the jurisdiction.
In support of their applications, the respondent's legal counsel, Judith Eckl, filed affidavits stating that the respondent had not received copies of the originating motions, as they were not among the documents left by the process server, Mr. Buck, at the respondent's premises. Eckl also stated that the "letter of service" signed by Mr. Buck did not mention the inclusion of the originating motions in the package of documents.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether the originating motions filed by the applicant were duly served on the respondent outside of the jurisdiction, in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of Court. The respondent challenged the service, arguing that the originating motions were not actually included in the documents delivered by the process server, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the originating motions.
The court had to determine the evidential value of the certificate of service provided by the German judicial authorities, and whether it was sufficient proof of proper service, or whether the respondent's affidavit evidence could rebut the presumption of valid service.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court acknowledged that the basis of the court's jurisdiction depended on the proper service of the originating motions on the respondent outside of the jurisdiction, as per Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The court noted that the applicant had complied with the requirements of Order 11 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court for service outside of the jurisdiction.
The court then examined the evidence provided by the applicant, which included a certificate of service issued by the judicial authorities of the District Court at Bad Urach, Germany. The English translation of this certificate, which was duly certified, clearly stated that the originating motions nos. 600007 and 600008 were served on the respondent on 24 July 2002 by handing them over to the respondent's employee, Judith Eckl, after an authorized representative of the respondent could not be found on the business premises.
The court held that under Order 11 Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Court, the certificate of service is evidence of the facts stated in it and the facts on which it is based. The court disagreed with the respondent's argument that the language used in the certificate was unclear, finding that it was apparent from the translation that the originating motions were indeed served on the respondent.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ultimately made no order on the respondent's applications, finding that the respondent had not satisfied the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the originating motions were not served at all. The court held that the applicant had adduced the certificate of service as evidence of proper service, and the respondent had neither challenged the validity of the certificate nor provided further counter-evidence to displace it.
As a result, the court concluded that the originating motions were duly served on the respondent outside of the jurisdiction, and the court therefore had jurisdiction to hear and try the originating motions.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for its analysis of the evidential value of a certificate of service issued by foreign judicial authorities in the context of service of originating process outside of the jurisdiction. The court's ruling affirms the prima facie evidential weight of such a certificate under the Rules of Court, and places the burden on the party challenging service to rebut the presumption of valid service.
The case also highlights the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court regarding service of originating process, as the court's jurisdiction to hear a matter depends on proper service. Practitioners must ensure that service is effected in accordance with the relevant rules, and that proper evidence of service is obtained and presented to the court.
Furthermore, this decision provides guidance on the court's approach to resolving conflicting evidence on the issue of service. The court's willingness to rely on the certificate of service, in the absence of a successful challenge by the respondent, demonstrates the court's pragmatic approach to determining jurisdictional issues based on the evidence before it.
Legislation Referenced
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [2003] SGHC 4
Source Documents
This article analyses [2003] SGHC 4 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.