SINGAPORE - Food and beverage chain Han's Cafe failed to stop high-end Japanese restaurant HAN Cuisine of Naniwa from using its namesake on Thursday. This was sufficient to establish that the appellant acquired goodwill by the relevant date. Here, then, are some things you need to take note of to win a trademark infringement case. In trademark infringement and passing off cases, expert evidence adduced often takes the form of a survey and it has become almost standard practice to have such surveys conducted. The case … 332). Besides seizure on request, Singapore Customs may also seize copies or goods which are reasonably suspected to be McDonald's has lost its exclusive claim to the "Mc" trademark on some of its food products within the EU after a dispute with an Irish fast … Part VI of the act criminalises the counterfeiting of a registered trademark, falsely applying a registered trademark to goods or services, and making or possessing an article used for counterfeiting. Examples of trademark infringement cases include instances in which one company sues because it contends that another company is profiting from its trademark without approval. 16/17. The dispute arose over the use of ‘Mac’ and ‘Mc’ as prefixes for branding beverages and food items – in particular, Future Enterprise’s use of ‘MacCoffee’, an … Examples of trademark infringement cases include instances in which one company sues because it contends that another company is profiting from its trademark without approval. Please sign in or register to post comments. The action of passing off failed as the High Court ruled that, although succeeding in establishing misrepresentation and damage, the appellant failed to demonstrate that it had acquired goodwill in the AMC Asia Mark at the relevant date. Trademark registration in Singapore is governed by the Trade Marks Act (Cap. A company seeking to register a trademark in Singapore should not rely on this defence as a substitute to performing necessary trademark searches. trademark infringement in Singapore, its observations in this regard may be pertinent should the plaintiffs file an appeal against the 1st and 3rd defendants. More broadly, the Court's acknowledgement of the doctrine may provide trademark holders with more options to pursue infringement claims. Background. Time Inc is said to have started using the trademark ‘FORTUNE’ in the 1930s in the US and has obtained registration in India in 1978. Compared with the two approaches, I am very pleased to notice that there is a typical case (maybe more) in 2017, Baroque woodworking Co., Ltd, vs. Zhejiang Elegantliving Baroque Co., Ltd1., which I believe it could be honored as a landmark case in trademark punitive damages, in which the Suzhou Intermediate Court consider the right holder ' s loss of future profits and derogation of … Activ or Active – Identical Sub-brands & Trade-dresses. It is not compulsory to register a trademark in Singapore; one may also rely on rights under the common law doctrine of "passing off" to protect a trademark. However, you still have to make an effort towards ensuring that the work is given absolute protection. Although the High Court ruled that there existed a prima facie case of infringement under Section 27(2)(b) of the appellant’s AMC Asia Mark, the High Court also found that the respondent was entitled to raise the own name defence as provided under Section 28(1)(a) of the TMA. At the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), Ralph Lauren claimed that their iconic polo rider on horseback, ubiquitously depicted on shirts across the world, had been infringed by the logo of our client USPA due to its similarity – and that USPA’s mark had been registered in … it-for-tat. Singapore Management University. Given that corporate names are artificial creations that can be adopted and changed at will, the court recognized that, although the potential for abuse existed, it could be dealt with by the honest practises proviso under Section 28(1) which provides that the use of one’s own name must be “in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.”. by SpicyIP May 8, 2021. In most cases, when there is an infringement action or crime, depending on the legislation applied, the trademark owner requires the infringement or crime to cease at the earliest stage. Diesel S.P.A. v. Bontton Sdn Bhd: The own name doctrine and the court’s power to make declarations of non-infringement, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) issue a new “Fast Track System” for Trademark Registration and Trademark Renewal. In the case of Burberry Ltd and another v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd [2019] SGCA 1 at the Singapore Court of Appeal, the respondent, Megastar was a freight forwarder providing transhipment services in Singapore… This first test case shows that the website-blocking measures under the CCA are actionable and effective for online trademark infringement cases in Thailand. The availability of the own name defence extends only to seeking justification of one’s own name as a trade mark and has no further scope. The Court of Appeal was not prepared to accept the use of one’s own name with other features which result in an appreciable increase in the likelihood of confusion that arises by reason only the similarity of the name. Pay/‘Pe’ Charcha: Delhi High Court’s Decision in PhonePe v. BharatPe Trademark Dispute. The first test case for doing so was in 2020, when a major Japanese manufacturer of imaging and optical products successfully used the website-blocking measures under Section 20(3) to fight online trademark infringement in Thailand. This case is in relation to whether a freight forwarder would be liable in the event if they import or export either by way of transshipment without having the knowledge that the package may contain counterfeit goods.. A trade mark infringement action was taken against a Singapore freight forwarder Megastar Shipping Pte. Registration of a trademark may strengthen a lawsuit like the one filed by Under Armour. A technology and services leader in interactive media marketing, on Thursday announced that the U.S. District Court of New York reactivated its patent and trademark infringement case against AOL, Time Warner and Platform-A. Academic year. Time for a David and Goliath story, with a sting in its tail. A registered proprietor has the exclusive right to use theregistered trade mark in relation to the goods or services forwhich the trade mark is registered. Related documents. SECONDARY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT IN SINGAPORE. As a result, the principles elaborated on in these decisions could assist the courts in future trademark cases under section 27(5). Though trademarks provide protections, simply owning a trademark doesn’t mean anything with the slightest similarity to the trademark’s designs and words constitutes infringement. Singapore has legal policies to ensure the protection of intellectual property from exploitation. Trademark in Malaysia. The protection granted to a trade mark registration is for an initial period of … Handling the defence in a patent lawsuit filed against Novartis Singapore. the goods are proposed to be imported into Singapore and the application of the sign in Singapore to them or their packaging would be an infringement of the registered trade mark; or ( c ) the sign has otherwise been used in relation to the goods in such a way as to infringe the registered trade mark. More broadly, the Court's acknowledgement of the doctrine may provide trademark holders with more options to pursue infringement claims. Legal cases not only ... A Singapore court denied ... McDonald’s registered the trademark in Philippines in 1985 and won a key ruling to protect its ‘Big Mac’ trademark from infringement. Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Courts”) received a letter in early 2015 from the Proprietor of the “BIG BOX” registered trade mark warning that they were infringing the registered mark by advertising their Tampines store as “COURTS BIG BOX MEGASTORE”. Whilst agreeing with the decision of the High Court in its finding of a prima facie case of infringement of the AMC Asia Mark under Section 27(2)(b) of the TMA by the respondent, the Court of Appeal disagreed that the respondent was entitled to the own name defence. Instead, first consider your current financial situation, the other party’s resources and record, as well as the merits of the other party’s case, before adopting your next course of action. Lacoste took the commission to the Beijing No 1 Intermediary People's Court last July, and demanded that Singapore Crocodile be prevented from registering its trademark in China. 1 Comment. Here are five previous cases … Given that corporate names are artificial creations that can be adopted and changed at will, the court recognized that, although the potential for abuse existed, it could be dealt with by the honest practises proviso under Section 28(1) which provides that the use of one’s own name must be “in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.”. Both elements had to be made out but were not by themselves sufficient. Welcome to Shelston IP's round up of Australian trade mark cases for 2019. Singapore Trademark Infringement cases -The Own Name Defence is Often no Defence at All. … Patent and Trademark Infringement Case. Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the licence). Trademark cases cost a lot of money for both the plaintiff and the alleged infringer. Read More. The case between Lacoste and the State Trademark Evaluation Commission opened on November 28, 2005. Trademark. American fast food chain, McDonald’s, won a trademark dispute case with their Singapore rival, Future Enterprises. secondary copyright liability. The dispute arose over the use of ‘Mac’ and ‘Mc’ as prefixes for branding beverages and food items – in particular, Future Enterprise’s use of ‘MacCoffee’, an instant coffee product under their Food Empire brand. In some cases, it may be sufficient for an attorney to contact the company and address the matter. Intellectual Property Law. In all, the own name defence is a narrow one with a very limited scope and – in view of potential abuse – justifiably so. Before being ‘swept away’ by the wave of IP jurisprudence, we set out below a summary of the facts and decisions. That is why presenting strong arguments in court can be crucial. In the recent Singapore High Court case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 305, the Court held that a freight forwarder who was unwittingly sent counterfeit goods into Singapore for transshipment was not liable for trademark infringement. The availability of the own name defence extends only to seeking justification of one’s own name as a trade mark and has no further scope. While there were plenty of cases in 2019, we have selected a few which we think are interesting and provide an indication of the types of issues dealt with by the Courts throughout the year. Late filing of evidence in a trademark opposition proceeding, pardoned! Here, then, are some things you need to take note of to win a trademark infringement case. Whilst agreeing with the decision of the High Court in its finding of a prima facie case of infringement of the AMC Asia Mark under Section 27(2)(b) of the TMA by the respondent, the Court of Appeal disagreed that the respondent was entitled to the own name defence. The court revisited and clarified its position in Rainforest Coffee Products Pte Ltd v. Rainforest Café, Inc [2000] 1 SLR(R) 725 in light of revisions made to the Trade Marks Act and subsequent developments in the United Kingdom, holding that the own name defence applies to the use of not just the “full corporate name,” but may also be invoked in circumstances where the full corporate name is used as a trademark in a modified form, subject to the facts of the case. Share. Although the High Court ruled that there existed a prima facie case of infringement under Section 27(2)(b) of the appellant’s AMC Asia Mark, the High Court also found that the respondent was entitled to raise the own name defence as provided under Section 28(1)(a) of the TMA. SINGAPORE - Food and beverage chain Han's Cafe failed to stop high-end Japanese restaurant HAN Cuisine of Naniwa from using its namesake on Thursday. Examples of lack of good faith would be the case where the applicant has no bona fide intention to use the trade mark at all but wishes to prevent a competitor from using the mark or one that is similar to it (Weir Warman Ltd v Research & Development Pty Ltd [2007] 2 SLR(R) 1073) and, where a distributor in Singapore registers a trade mark that is similar to his foreign principal’s trade mark … The burden of proof lies squarely with the defendant who has to adduce evidence to prove use in accordance with honest practices to the satisfaction of the court. In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd ([2017] SGHC 305) the plaintiffs (Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Burberry, Hermès and Sanrio Company) sued a Singaporean freight forwarder (Megastar) for trademark infringement by importing or exporting counterfeit goods after two containers containing counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiffs’ registered marks were seized by Singapore … Singapore acceded to the Madrid Protocol on July 31, 2000, and it came into force in Singapore … This being said, it is important to remember, as mentioned above, Singapore operates a ‘first-to-file’ system and early application for trademarks, ideally before release of products and services into the … The Court of Appeal went on to clarify that the honest practices enquiry required both an objective assessment – based on what was commonly done in the business or industry and regarded as honest – and, also, a subjective test as to whether the particular motivations and intentions of the defendant were, in fact, honest. 1 Coleman Street#07-09 The AdelphiSingapore 179803, © mirandah law llp 2021, All Rights Reserved. Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School Of Law School of Law 1-2014 Reading the tea leaves in Singapore: Who will be left holding the bag for secondary trademark infringement on the internet Irene CALBOLI Singapore Management University, irene.calboli@gmail.com A company seeking to register a trademark in Singapore should not rely on this defence as a substitute to performing necessary trademark searches. Trademark infringement case is famous due to numerous grey areas in the analysis of intellectual property rights law. helpful 1 0. The 10 million yuan sum is significantly larger than the average amount awarded in trademark infringement cases in China. Lacoste took the commission to the Beijing No 1 Intermediary People's Court last July, and demanded that Singapore Crocodile be prevented from registering its trademark … It can also cause damage to reputation no matter if it’s a large business or a small one. The case concerned two shipments from China bound for Indonesia via Singapore. VIEW ALL. A Singapore court denied McDonald’s request to use prefix Mc or Mac in favor of a small company, Future Enterprises Private Ltd., that applied to … trademark infringement in Singapore, its observations in this regard may be pertinent should the plaintiffs file an appeal against the 1st and 3rd defendants. Mirandah Law is a well-renowned firm in the arena of trademark litigation, with high incidences of prevailing on behalf of its clients in contentious trademark matters before the Court of Appeal, High Court and IP Registry level. The High Court here considered a patent infringement case and commented on various aspects of patent law which given the dearth of local authority on the subject was a welcome development. A 10-year blueprint to strengthen Singapore’s position as a global intangible assets (IA) and intellectual property (IP) hub as well as maintain Singapore’s position as a top-ranked IP regime. The most popular blog post to date on TrademarkNow is "Nine Nasty Trademark Infringement Cases – and how to avoid them". In instances where other sources of similarity between the marks exist, the defendant must adduce compelling reasons as to why this is the case – failing which, doubts may be raised over his bona fides. The responsibility of detecting intellectual property (IP) infringement or piracy is left to the owners of the property. In all, the own name defence is a narrow one with a very limited scope and – in view of potential abuse – justifiably so. The case concerned two shipments from China bound for Indonesia via Singapore. A trademark infringement defense is the legal case brought by a defendant to prove they did not infringe on someone else’s (the plaintiff’s) trademark. Course. The ruling is another key milestone in China’s continued crackdown on IP infringement. The company received customer complaints about a website selling dashboard cameras bearing its trademark. This is a landmark case in Singapore as it questioned whether the “conduit” between importer and exporter can be found liable for trademark infringement. Defending against various challenges to the FETA Geographical Indication in Singapore. It can also cause damage to reputation no matter if it’s a large business or a small one. Mr Tang Chay Seng, 63, the owner of a famous bak chor mee (minced meat noodle) outlet in Crawford Lane sued his nephew for trademark infringement. September 13, 2016. Registration of a trademark may strengthen a lawsuit like the one filed by Under Armour. It comprises arguments like Cadbury and Nestle over the trademark of the characteristic blue wrapping. IP Finals - Week 12 - Trademark (Infringement) University. © mirandah asia 2021, All Rights Reserved |, India IP Policy, Patent Legislation: Amends Patent Rules to Expedite Grant, Singapore Mirandah cases, Trademark cases: USPA Scores a Win in Polo Case. a legal case brought by a defendant to prove they did not infringe on someone else's (the plaintiff's) trademark. The previous few years have also led to many landmark trademark disputes. Companies might also want assistance with registering a trademark and taking preventative measures in order to avoid this type of infringement. Trademark cases cost a lot of money for both the plaintiff and the alleged infringer. In relation to the claim of passing off, the Court of Appeal held that documentary evidence in the form of invoices and awards won for specific events organized on behalf of certain clients such as Nokia and Hewlett- Packard as adduced by the appellant were indicative of regular sales. In trademark infringement cases, plaintiffs have a wider set of remedies available to them, including injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Trademarks Act is the main legislation governing trademark infringement and anti-counterfeiting in Singapore. American fast food chain, McDonald’s, won a trademark dispute case with their Singapore rival, Future Enterprises. 3) Multiples of the royalty for trademark licence; 4) In case the infringer’s bad faith is found, the amount can be one to three times the value as calculated above; 5) Up to RMB3 million in statutory compensation; 6) The trademark owner’s reasonable expenses in stopping the infringement must also be included. The case between Lacoste and the State Trademark Evaluation Commission opened on November 28, 2005. Companies might also want assistance with registering a trademark and taking preventative measures in order to avoid this type of infringement. Singapore Trademark Infringement cases -The Own Name Defence is Often no Defence at All. Upon reviewing the evidence and hearing both the parties, Court observed that the Defendants had no real prospect to defend the claim as there is a clear case of trademark infringement. Furthermore, the analysis in these decisions indicates that, when addressing In The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v. AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated April 21, 2016, found in favour of the appellant, thus overturning a decision by the High Court which had dismissed the appellant’s (who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit) claims of trademark infringement under Section 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act (TMA) and Passing Off of its AMC Asia Mark by the respondents. This has implications not only for copyright and trademark owners but also for other IP owners looking to eliminate online infringement of their products or services, and protect their valuable brands … In Peru, for both criminal and administrative cases, preliminary injunctions are available, making it helpful for the trademark owner as an immediate response is given to an actual infringement. If you have been sued for trade mark infringement, you may attack the other Singapore 237994, Tel (65) 6826 9685 / 6826 9629. v. Iqbal … The Court observed that Oravel has made a prima facie case for infringement and Hotel Metro’s adoption of an identical trademark was a deliberate move to demean the registered trademark.
Silver Airways Nassau Bahamas, Brother And Sister Duet Singers, Read Criminal Bundle Wallpaper, Pulley Type A B C, Rugby Kicking Tee Ireland, Bts Album Price In Singapore, Sarah Mclachlan - Possession, English Literature Pdf For Bcs,