Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGIPOS 3
- Court: Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
- Date: 2025-05-09
- Judges: Principal Assistant Registrar Tan Mei Lin
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Skins IP Limited
- Defendant/Opponent: Symphony Holdings Limited
- Legal Areas: Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Act, Trade Marks Act 1998
- Cases Cited: [2007] SGHC 59, [2011] SGIPOS 12, [2022] SGIPOS 16, [2025] SGIPOS 3
- Judgment Length: 18 pages, 4,431 words
Summary
This case involves an opposition by Symphony Holdings Limited against an application by Skins IP Limited to register the trade mark "SKINS" in Singapore. Symphony Holdings, the owner of the earlier registered "SKINS" trade mark, argued that Skins IP Limited's application was made in bad faith under Section 7(6) of the Trade Marks Act. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore agreed with Symphony Holdings and refused to register the Skins IP Limited trade mark application.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Symphony Holdings Limited is a Hong Kong company that owns the earlier registered "SKINS" trade mark in Singapore, covering goods in Classes 10, 18, 25, and 28. This trade mark was previously owned by a Swiss company, Skins International Trading AG (SITAG), which went bankrupt in 2019. Symphony Holdings acquired the "SKINS" trade mark through a purchase agreement.
Skins IP Limited is a UK-based company that was incorporated in August 2019, shortly after SITAG's bankruptcy. Skins IP Limited applied to register the "SKINS" trade mark in Singapore and several other jurisdictions, relying on an earlier EUIPO application. Skins IP Limited also applied to revoke the registration of Symphony Holdings' earlier "SKINS" trade mark on grounds of non-use.
The judgment notes that Skins IP Limited and Sports Direct Holdings Limited, a British retailer that distributed SKINS products in Europe, are ultimately owned by the same parent company, Frasers Group. The directors of Skins IP Limited are also directors of Sports Direct.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether Skins IP Limited's application to register the "SKINS" trade mark in Singapore was made in bad faith under Section 7(6) of the Trade Marks Act. Symphony Holdings argued that Skins IP Limited's actions, including the timing of its incorporation and trade mark filings, as well as its connections to the previous owner of the "SKINS" trade mark, demonstrated bad faith.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by outlining the legal principles on bad faith, as established in the Valentino case. Bad faith encompasses not only actual dishonesty, but also commercially unacceptable dealings by reasonable and experienced persons in the trade. The test for bad faith has both a subjective and an objective element, and the determination depends on the specific factual matrix of each case.
The court then examined the evidence presented by Symphony Holdings. This included the close connections between Skins IP Limited, Sports Direct, and the previous owner of the "SKINS" trade mark, SITAG. The court noted that Skins IP Limited was incorporated shortly after another company, Four Marketing, failed in its bid to acquire SITAG's IP portfolio, and that Skins IP Limited then quickly filed trade mark applications in multiple jurisdictions.
Additionally, the court found that Skins IP Limited had been completely dormant since its incorporation, suggesting it had not undertaken any legitimate business activities to justify its trade mark filings. The court held that Skins IP Limited's actions, when viewed objectively, would be considered commercially unacceptable by reasonable and experienced persons in the trade.
What Was the Outcome?
The court concluded that Symphony Holdings had established a prima facie case of bad faith, and that Skins IP Limited had failed to provide any evidence to rebut this. Accordingly, the court refused Skins IP Limited's application to register the "SKINS" trade mark in Singapore under Section 7(6) of the Trade Marks Act.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the application of the bad faith ground for opposing a trade mark registration under Section 7(6) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act. The court's analysis of the specific factual matrix, including the timing and circumstances of the trade mark filings, as well as the connections between the parties, demonstrates the contextual and fact-specific nature of the bad faith assessment.
The decision also highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence to rebut an allegation of bad faith. The court made it clear that a mere denial or lack of explanation from the applicant is not enough to overcome a prima facie case of bad faith. This case serves as a reminder to trade mark applicants to carefully consider the potential implications of their actions and to be prepared to justify their trade mark filings if challenged.
Legislation Referenced
- Trade Marks Act
- Trade Marks Act 1998
Cases Cited
- [2007] SGHC 59
- [2011] SGIPOS 12
- [2022] SGIPOS 16
- [2025] SGIPOS 3
- Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc [2010] 2 SLR 1203
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGIPOS 3 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.