Mirandah logo

Singapore Malaysia Patent Agents Indonesia Thailand Trademark Agents Vietnam Philippines India Patent Lawyers

 

The decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) in Carolina Herrera, Ltd v. Lacoste ([2014] SGIPOS 3 (Feb. 20, 2014)) shows that the Registry may not be exceedingly enthusiastic about allowing a trademark proprietor to claim exclusive rights over a common element in a family or series of marks by virtue of the trademark registration of these family marks, where the registration of the common element has not been applied for independently.

Lacoste applied for the registration of the mark L.12.12 (see below) for goods in Classes 3, 8 and 25. (Application No. T1100417A, filed Dec. 2, 2010.) Carolina Herrera, Ltd opposed the mark based on its prior-registered series of trademarks, all of which contained the element 212 together with a word element.

The opponent argued that, although it had not applied for the registration of the mark 212 simpliciter, it had the exclusive claim over the common element of the subject mark, that is, 212, by virtue of its earlier trademarks (namely, 212 ON ICE, 212 VIP, 212 SEXY and 212 BY CAROLINA HERRERA). It argued further that the element 212 formed the distinctive and dominant element of its earlier marks, which therefore constituted a series or a family of marks, all containing the element 212; consequently, the public recognized the entire family of marks as belonging to the opponent, and registration of the applicant’s mark would lead to confusion as to the trade origin in the marketplace.

The applicant contended that since the opponent did not register the mark 212 simpliciter, it should not be granted a monopoly over the use of the mark. It argued, further, that the opponent’s marks were never referred to as 212 independently but were always denoted by an additional element (i.e., one of the word elements SEXY, VIP, ON ICE and BY CAROLINE HERRERA). This demonstrated that although 212 formed an element of the opponent’s mark, the public did not recognize 212 simpliciter as belonging to a family or series of marks.

The Registrar of Trade Marks, on a careful assessment of the evidence adduced by both parties and the relevant jurisprudence, held that the opponent did not have the exclusive right over the element 212. She opined that the registration of the marks containing a common element did not ipso facto give rise to a presumption that the public perceived the marks as belonging to a family. In order to claim monopoly over a common feature, the opponent had to advance sufficient evidence that consumers perceived and remembered the marks as belonging to a family of marks, containing common characteristics and associated with each other in terms of source of trade.

In conclusion, the Registrar also held that there was no visual, aural or conceptual similarity between the mark applied for and the opponent’s marks and that the element 212 simpliciter would not be considered an “earlier trademark” under the Trade Marks Act.

 



This article first appeared in the INTA Bulletin. For further information please visit http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/INTABulletin.aspx

Multi Access Limited (“Multi Access”) recently succeeded in their claim to cancel the trademark registrations of a local entrepreneur, Dhalim Soekodanu (“Dhalim”), on the ground of bad faith, pursuant to Trademark Law No. 15 of 2001, Article 4.

 multiaccess and dhalim mark

Multi Access is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for 王老吉which is pronounced as WONG LO KAT in Cantonese and WANG LAO JI in Mandarin. It is popularly used for herbal tea products. “Wang” or “Wong” is a Chinese surname which means “King,” “Old” and “Lucky.” The said mark is registered in ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Argentina, Australia, Benelux, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, EU, Germany, Hongkong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Macau, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Swiss, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, America, Britain, Venezuela, Vietnam and Yemen. In Indonesia, it was registered in class 32 as early as 1991.

Dhalim Soekodanu, a local Indonesian entreprenuer, also registered the mark Wang Lao Ji in a different style        

     dhalimin classes 5 and 32 in 2002.

 

In the course of the proceedings, Multi Access argued that the subject registration is similar in appearance, spelling and/or the sound. Further, Multi Access established the well-known status of the Wong Lao Ji trademark by demonstrating the extensive trademark registrations and marketing campaigns conducted in the promotion of the Wong Lao Ji products in many countries, including Indonesia. Evidence submitted by Multi Access included copies of certificates of foreign registrations/applications, advertisement, rewards and favourable trademark cancellation decisions in favour of Multi Access.

In ruling in favor of Multi Access, the Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court declared Wong Lao Ji to be a well-known mark and found Dhalim to have acted in bad faith in hijacking the said mark.

The foregoing decision underscores the policy under Article 6 of the Trademark Law which states that an application shall be rejected if the mark is similar in its essential part or entirety with a well-known mark owned by another party for the same kind of goods or services. Thus, a trademark registration obtained in bad faith will rarely be upheld by the Courts.

Design laws vary by country. Some countries classify designs as patents and some have separate "registered design" or “industrial design” systems. In some countries, designs of products must be whole products in order to be registrable and not parts of products. Some countries allow protection of only part or parts of the product but the said part or parts of the product must be clearly identified in solid lines in the representations while the parts for which protection is not claimed must be indicated by means of dotted or broken lines.

 

A comparison of primary features of design laws in the ASEAN countries is summarized in the table and discussed below.

Country

Term

Novelty

Multiple embodiments

Allowed in one application?

Color

Allowed?

Dashed lines/shading allowed

Indonesia

10 years

Absolute

Yes, but Indonesia has strict “unity of design” requirement. Can file divisional later.

Yes

Dashed lines Yes

Shadings - No

Malaysia

Up to 25 years in 5 year increments

Absolute

Yes, provided all are in the same Locarno class

Yes

Yes

Philippines

Up to 15 years in 5 year increments

Absolute

Yes

Yes

Yes

Singapore

Up to 15 years in 5 year increments

Absolute

No

Yes

Yes

Thailand

10 years

Not published in any country, not known or used in TH

No

Yes

No

Vietnam

Up to 15 years in 5 year increments

Absolute

Yes, but variants must be fully described in disclosure

Yes

No

 

Indonesia

In Indonesia, it is possible to register “creations of forms, configuration or compositions of lines or colors, or lines and colors, or the combination thereof in three dimensional or two dimensional form which give an aesthetical impression.”

Although Indonesia allows multiple embodiments in one application, the embodiments must satisfy the “unity of design” requirement. Should the Examiner find that there is no “unity of design,” the embodiments can be split into separate applications later in the examination stage.

Malaysia
Coverage is allowed under the Design Act for “features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process or means, being features which, in the finished article, appeal to and are judged by the eye.”

While “novelty” is a requirement, no substantive novelty examination is performed prior to registration. A statement of novelty pointing out the portion claimed as novel is required.

Philippines

In the Philippines, an industrial design is defined as “any new or original creation relating to the ornamental features of shape configuration, form or combination thereof, of an article of manufacture, whether or not associated with lines, patterns or colors, which impact an aesthetic and pleasing appearance to the article.”

Philippine design practice allows for the use of multiple embodiments. However, it is important that the articles should be of substantially similar dominant design features that are embodied in a single design concept and relate to the same sub-class of the International classification or same set or composition of articles.

Singapore

Industrial designs or models in Singapore are defined as “the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process.”
 
For national registration, Singapore requires designs be novel, but no examination as to novelty is conducted at the time of application. A statement of novelty is required and should be less than 500 words.

Thailand

In Thailand, protection can be obtained for “any configuration of a product or composition of lines or colours that gives a special appearance to a product and can be used as a pattern for a manufactured or handcrafted article.”

It is important to note that Thailand does not allow multiple embodiments in one application and there is no provision for filing a divisional application in Thailand. Hence, to validly obtain protection for several embodiments, they must be filed separately in the filing stage.

Vietnam

Industrial design patents “protect the outer appearance of a product represented by lines, three-dimensional forms or colors or a combination of these … and which may serve as a pattern for the manufacture of an industrial or handicraft product.”

All design filings must include views of all sides of the article and a perspective view.

Conclusion

Since design laws and practice varies between countries, it is important that everyone considering industrial design protection must be aware of the different requirements and work with their agents in each country to obtain the most efficient and cost effective route to registration.

 

 

Patents were first used as collateral to secure financing by Thomas Edison in the late 1880s. Edison used his patent for the incandescent electric light bulb as collateral to secure financing to start his company, the General Electric Company. Since Edison’s use of his patents as collateral, intellectual property has been used as collateral in the United States. Although the use of intellectual property as collateral did not gain popularity in the late 1800s with Edison’s use, it has become quite popular in recent years.

A patent is a right granted to the owner of an invention that prevents others, without the owner’s permission, from making, using, importing or selling the invention. A patentable invention includes a product or a process that gives a new technical solution to a problem, or a new method of doing things, the composition of a new product, or a technical improvement on how certain objects work. A patent has a term of 20 years from the date of filing, subject to the payment of annual renewal fees. One main thing to think about when using patents as collateral is the fact that patent protection is territorial. If filed and granted in Singapore, a patent is only enforceable within Singapore and therefore, the protection is only afforded to a patent owner within Singapore.

On April 8, 2014, Singapore announced details of a new financing scheme aimed at helping local businesses secure bank loans by using their patents as collateral. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is the agency that implements this scheme and hopes that this will spark the interest of local companies.

Companies interested in availing themselves of the scheme must be local enterprises incorporated in Singapore and use a granted patent as collateral. As part of the approval process, their patent will be valued by a member of an IPOS-appointed panel, which includes valuation companies, i.e. American Appraisal Singapore, Consor Intellectual Asset Management and Deloitte & Touche Financial Advisory Services. The panel will determine the worth of the patent to help banks decide on how much to lend. Three local banks – DBS, OCBC and UOB – are currently participating in the scheme.

This two-year plan by IPOS will involve the Singapore government sharing the default risk with participating banks. The banks will start accepting loan applications under this scheme from late second quarter of this year until April 2016. Interest ranging from 3.5% to 7.5% will be charged for loans of between one and six years. This rate is lower than the interest charged to smaller companies seeking unsecured loans, which is 8% to 10%.

IPOS chief executive Tan Yih San, during the scheme’s launch, said: “What we are (doing) is to work with the banks to recognise intangible assets, which is not quite something that is readily available in the loan market today.” He added that the scheme will open opportunities for companies to grow and expand not just locally, but overseas as well.

During the same event, Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State (Law and Education), said: “There is a growing trend of businesses being valued based on intangible assets. According to a report by Brand Finance, 42% of enterprise value in Singapore was in intangible assets in 2012, up from 35% in 2011. With IPOS’ new IP Financing Scheme, businesses can monetize their IP assets,” she added.

There are several advantages of using intellectual property as collateral.

One advantage is that intellectual property can be more secure than other forms of collateral. Most investors only invest in intellectual property that is receiving licensing royalties. The royalty payments are the ultimate source of cash that repay the loan. Hence, there is a consistent source of cash flow to repay the loan through licensing and, therefore, lower the risk of default. Another advantage is the increased return the owner of the intellectual property earns. Using intellectual property as collateral increases the owner’s return through increased leveraging. Many royalty streams are collected in one lump sum rather than over time, and this lump sum can then be invested in future or current projects that have a higher return than the cost of financing.

On the other hand, risk is the main disadvantage in using intellectual property as collateral. However, this can be minimized through proper loan structure.

As Singapore is increasingly becoming a technology-driven, knowledge-based economy, the use of intellectual property as collateral will become popular moving forward


In 2009, Fun Ranch Mega Development, Inc. (Fun Ranch) filed several trademark applications for a Facade of a Building for use on children’s entertainment and amusement center. The applications were rejected by the Examiner on the ground that the mark may not be registered because it does not function as a trademark and is not capable of distinguishing the goods or services.

On Appeal to the Director of Trademarks, Fun Ranch claimed that its mark is a unique design of a facade of a building that functions as a service mark. It argued that the mark is a visible sign that is distinctive of its business as proven by the fact that no other design similar to it belonging to a different recreational or amusement establishment was cited by the Examiner.

The Director of Trademarks denied the appeal, hence the case was elevated to the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHIL).

In its decision handed down in November 2013, the Director General stated that the function of a trademark is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed; to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into the market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill; to assure the public that they are procuring the genuine article; to prevent fraud and imposition; and to protect the manufacturer against substitution and sale of an inferior and different article as his product. Significantly, a mark to be registered must be a visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods and services of an enterprise.

An examination of the subject applications shows the lack of a distinguishing feature that would make it a distinct "facade of a building" used by an enterprise for children’s entertainment and amusement center. This representation of a facade of a building does not function as an indicator of Fun Ranch’s business enterprise. In sum, Fun Ranch’s use of a unique facade of a building does not qualify for trademark registration.

This case demonstrates the importance of a trademark being a source identifier. Failure of a mark to function as such will result in disqualification for trademark registration.

The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) has published the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2014 on 28 February 2014. The amendments are effective from the date of publication.

The salient aspects of the amended rules include:

Applicant: Introduction of a third category of applicant for patent in the form of “small entity”.

The fees charged to small entity applicants have been fixed in between the fees for a natural person and a large entity. The applicants can now be categorized as follows:

(a)  Natural Person Applicant: Any natural person either alone or jointly with other natural persons.           
 
(b)  Small Entity Applicant: An enterprise (proprietorship, Hindu undivided family, association of persons, co-operative society, partnership firm, company or undertaking) engaged in “manufacture or production of goods” or “providing or rendering of services”, with the following limitation of investment:
 
(i)     Enterprise engaged in “manufacture or production of goods” with an investment in plant and machinery not exceeding ten (10) crore rupees. (Approx. US$ 1,611,085)
(ii)   Enterprise engaged in “providing or rendering of services” with an investment in equipment not exceeding five (5) crore rupees. (Approx. US$ 805,545)
 
In case of Small Entity applicant status, the applicant needs to provide an evidence for the same. Such evidence has to be filed at least once with the particular application number.
 
(c)    Large Entity Applicant: An applicant other than a Natural Person or Small Entity.

Official Fee: Establishment of a revised fee structure for filing of patent application as well as other proceedings before the Patent Office.

The revised fee structure is as follows:

           Natural Person:           Approx. 60% increase from the previous fee for a natural person.

            Small Entity:               Equivalent to the previous fee for a large entity.

            Large Entity:               Approx. 100% increase from the previous fee.

Copy of the revised fee schedule can be downloaded here.

Furthermore, filing an application or document with the Patent Office in hard copy (i.e., not availing the e-filing facility/online mode) would incur an additional 10% official fee in the respective category.

Also, in case of partial or full transfer of an application from an applicant with Small Entity status to an applicant with Large Entity status, the difference, if any, in the scale of fee(s) between the fee for Small Entity and the fee for Large Entity, in the same matter, is to be paid by the new applicant along with the request for transfer.

Please contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. should you require any further information or clarification regarding the above.

 

 

 

Tuesday, 01 April 2014 04:18

Enforcement Powers in Philippines

Pursuant to the recent amendments of the Philippines Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (“IPOPHL”) issued Office Order No. 13-170 which provides the rules and regulations for the exercise of its enforcement functions and visitorial powers.

An Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Office (“IPREC”) was established to receive information, complaints or reports from rights holders, other government agencies and the public in general relative to Intellectual Property Rights violations. The IPREC will be headed by the Director General and assisted by designated IPOPHL personnel.

IPOPHL enforcement actions are initiated by filing a verified complaint by the rights holder or its representative. Within 30 days from receipt, action must be taken to undertake any or all of the following enforcement actions:

(a) issuance of notice/warning to the respondents; (b) issuance of a visitorial order (“VO”) on the subject premises; (c) issuance of compliance order (“CO”) against the respondents; (d) immediate filing of administrative complaint before the local government unit concerns or other government agencies/tribunals; (e) referral of the case to the law enforcement agency for case build-up; (f) recommendation for application of search warrant; (g) dismissal of the complaint; (h) referral of the case to other government agencies for filing of charges for violation of other laws, rules or regulations; (i) such other actions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the IP Code.

In the event a VO is issued, it shall be valid 10 days from issuance. The nature of the visit and the complained IPR violation must be duly explained to the owners, employees or representatives of the business establishment. Only those items prominently displayed in business establishments shall be noted in the Post-Operation report. The Director General may likewise issue a CO directing the owner of the business establishment to comply with the IP Code within 60 days to avoid the filing of an administrative action.

With fresh enforcement powers, IPOPHL is expected to provide the necessary assistance to trademark owners and support the fight against IPR violators in the Philippines.

 

 

 

Tuesday, 01 April 2014 03:04

The Margins of Discretion in Singapore

The recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) between V Hotel and Jelco Properties concerning an Application for Restoration of Trademark Application and Request for Extension of Time (EOT), shows that IPOS continues to take a stringent position with regard to procedural defaults such as an attorney’s delay in responding to IPOS within the deadline.
 
Facts
 
Trademark Application No. T1010045B for the mark (application mark) in the name of V Hotel (applicants) was published in the Trademarks Journal on July 1, 2011. An opposition was filed by Far East Hospitality Services (the opposition mark was later assigned to Jelco Properties, the respondents). The applicants were required to file their evidence within the extended deadline of October 2, 2013.
 
However, no evidence was filed by the applicants by October 2, 2013. On October 16, 2013, IPOS wrote to the applicants that the application was deemed withdrawn. Five days after receipt of the aforementioned letter, the applicants wrote to IPOS, submitting the form for EOT and explaining that the deadline was missed on account of a docketing error which was compounded by the solicitor-in charge going for a mandatory military reservist camp. On October 28, 2013, the applicants submitted their statutory declaration for the restoration of the subject application and sought leave for an interlocutory hearing.
 
 
Applicant’s Submissions
 
The applicants submitted that, as confirmed by Asian Aisle Pte Ltd v Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited[2002]SGIPOS7, Rule 83 of the Trademark Rules (Rules) enables the Registrar to allow a request for an EOT if such extension is in the best interest of the parties. Further, the applicants set out the principles expounded by the Court of Appeal in The Tokai Maru [1998]2SLR(R)646, which the Registrar ought to adopt while exercising his powers under Rule 83:
 
1. The “litigant should not be deprived of his opportunity to…have determination of the issues on merits as a punishment for a breach of these Rules” unless the other party is prejudiced and cannot be compensated in costs;
 
2. It is “rarely appropriate” to deny a party an EOT “where the denial would have the effect of depriving him of his defence because of a procedural default” and lead to prejudice that cannot be compensated in costs.
 
The applicant further submitted that there exists a “good explanation for the oversight” and no prejudice was caused to the respondents. They argued that in the interest of justice, procedural defaults should not be allowed to prevail over substantive justice, and blind adherence to procedural requirements would be “unnecessarily draconian” in the present matter.
 
 
Respondent’s Submissions
 
The respondents argued that Rule 83 mandates a balancing exercise between “public interest that rules relating to procedure are followed” for certainty and finality, on one hand, and “the need to ensure the determination of the issues on merits in the interest of justice” on the other hand. Thus, unless exceptional and extenuating circumstances exist, the public interest to promote certainty, finality and expeditious disposal of cases requires that IPOS ensure strict compliance with procedural time limits.
 
They further submitted that bona fide oversight or omission by the solicitor owing to incorrect docketing cannot be considered compelling enough in the present circumstances. The legitimate expectation on the part of the respondents that the opposition should be dealt with in due compliance of the Rules, together with the public interest associated with maintaining the procedural sanctity of the opposition proceedings, far outweigh the applicant’s delayed actions in defending their trademark application.
 
 
Decision
 
The Registrar refused the restoration of the subject trademark application and noted that there is no “general discretion” granted to the Registrar to extend prescribed time limits. These time limits are to be construed strictly unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. The Registrar recognized the balancing prowess associated with the use of discretion and opined that the applicants had been unable to show the existence of compelling circumstances which made it pertinent for the Registrar to allow the extension of time superseding the public interest associated with deadlines and the legitimate expectation of the respondents that the sanctity of the opposition will be maintained.
 
This decision underscores the fact that while the Registrar has discretionary powers, it neither implies nor justifies the use of these powers without proper reason. Although there is no rule of law to define what error can be pardoned, it is important for party litigants to note that procedural defaults and bona fide errors and delays will not be condoned unless the applicant can establish an overall picture which is able to warrant the compassion of the Registry.

In Guy Neale and others v. Nine Squares [2013] SGHC 249, the Singapore High Court dismissed a trade mark invalidation suit and confirmed the requisite attributes for the establishment of goodwill in Singapore.

The Plaintiffs in that case comprises fourindividuals and two companies which carry on business as a partnership operating the restaurant, bar and club business known as “Ku De Ta” in Bali, Indonesia. The “KU DE TA” trademark was registered in Indonesia on March 20, 2001.

The Defendant is the registered owner of two trademarks in Singapore bearing the name “KU DE TA” (the SG marks). The 5th Plaintiff was a shareholder of the Defendant and was involved in its activities. He was made a party as the 5th Plaintiff because the action was brought by the “partnership” of which he was a party to. However, he gave evidence on behalf of the Defendant.

The 1st SG mark was registered on February 16, 2004, in Class 43 (restaurants, etc) as a trademark in Singapore. The 2nd SG mark was registered on June 30, 2009, as a trademark in Singapore to protect Ku De Ta-branded apparel, jewellery and music. The Plaintiffs instituted proceedings against the Defendant for:

  1. a declaration that the SG marks are held on trust for the Plaintiffs and should accordingly be transferred to the Plaintiffs; or
  2. an invalidation of the SG marks on the grounds of, inter alia, passing-off, breach of fiduciary duties, registration of the SG marks in bad faith and usurpation of corporate opportunity.
  3. At the outset, the High Court found that it was indeed conceivable for the Indonesian trademark to be owned legally and beneficially from parties different from those that legally/beneficially owned the SG marks. In this connection, the High Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that the name and the goodwill would be the most valuable asset of the partnership; and that from the outset, the parties had agreed that the name and goodwill would belong to the partnership.
  4. Be that as it may, the High Court found that there was no creation of an express trust as the Plaintiffs did not establish the requisite certainty of intention, that there was no usurpation of corporate opportunity and that there were no breaches of fiduciary duties.

With respect to ascertaining whether the applications to register the SG marks were made in bad faith, the High Court reiterated that an application for the registration of a trademark would be made in bad faith if the defendant’s conduct in applying for the registration of the trademark fell short of the normally accepted standards of commercial behaviour; and if the defendant subjectively knew of facts which would have made an ordinary honest person realize that what the defendant was doing would be regarded as breaching those standards.

To establish goodwill in Singapore, the Plaintiffs have to show the presence of actual or potential customers in Singapore at the material time. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ grounds for invalidating the SG marks have a common denominator – the Plaintiffs must show that their “KU DE TA” trade mark was an earlier trademark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act (Cap. 332).

In respect of the 1st SG mark, while the international publicity of Ku De Ta cannot be discounted in considering whether the trademarks were well known in Singapore, such publicity cannot be as relevant and significant as the publicity and advertising conducted in Singapore. Indeed, the ultimate inquiry is whether the trademark is well known in Singapore. Online travel guides and newspaper articles from other jurisdictions are of limited assistance unless there is proof of their distribution in Singapore or that they were read by Singapore residents. Mere publication of a book in Singapore does not imply that it was distributed here at all. In the circumstances, the court found that the evidence did not show on a balance of probabilities that Ku De Ta enjoyed goodwill in Singapore as at February 16, 2004.

In respect of the 2nd SG mark, the Plaintiffs submitted that Ku De Ta Bali enjoyed goodwill in Singapore when the Defendant applied to register the 2nd SG mark on June 30, 2009. In this respect, the High Court agreed that it was likely for Ku De Ta Bali (as a restaurant operating in Bali) to be well-known to the relevant sector of the Singapore public as well. However, the High Court noted that the 2nd SG mark was registered to only protect Ku De Ta-branded apparel, jewellery and music. In the circumstances, while the High Court was prepared to find some goodwill in Singapore as at June 30, 2009, for Ku De Ta as a restaurant, the High Court found that the evidence did not support the finding of goodwill as at that date for Ku De Ta-branded apparel, jewellery or music.

By reason of the above, the Plaintiffs’ claims vis-á-vis invalidation of the trade marks and the tort of passing-off also failed.

Thursday, 06 March 2014 07:40

Amended Singapore Patent Law in a Nutshell

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has announced that the amendments to the Singapore Patents Act and Rules will come into force on 14 February 2014. This new system will affect all new Singapore patent applications, new Singapore national phase applications as well as new divisional applications filed on or after 14 February 2014.

The amendments will introduce several significant changes to both the requirements and procedures for obtaining a patent in Singapore, which include the change from a ‘self-assessment’ system to a ‘positive-grant’ system. Please find below a table highlighting the new changes to the system for your easy reference.

 

Current Patent System

New Patent System

1. Self-Assessment System

Patent may be granted even if the claimed invention does not meet the patentability requirements as long as the claims have been searched and examined before and there is no lack of unity objection.

The decision to proceed to grant and obtain a granted patent lies with the patentee.

1. Positive Grant System

Only applications that meet the patentability requirements can proceed to grant.

Applications that do not meet the patentability requirements will be refused.

The decision to allow patentees to proceed to grant and obtain a granted patent lies with the Examiner.

2. Two-Track Prosecution System

Patentee has the option to proceed via fast track (default) or slow track (with a request for block extension of time)

When the block extension is requested, relevant deadlines (i.e. to satisfy the examination requirements and to pay the grant fee) will be extended by 18 months.

Two deadlines for requesting search and examination i.e. 21 months and 39 months (with block extension) from priority date.

Two deadlines for satisfying examination requirements and paying the grant fee i.e. 42 months and 60 months (with block extension) from priority date.

2. Single Track Prosecution System

The option to request for a block extension of time is no longer available.

A simplified prosecution system whereby local Search and Examination deadline is fixed at 36 months from the priority date while the deadline to request for supplementary examination is at 54 months from the priority date.

Supplementary examination must be requested if the patentee wishes to rely on a corresponding granted/allowed patent or final examination results from the prescribed patent offices.

The Examiner will issue a Notice of Eligibility indicating the patentability requirements are satisfied and patentee may proceed to grant.

The Examiner will issue a Notice of Intention to Refuse indicating the patentability requirements are not satisfied and grant will be refused.

Patentee has the option to request for Examination Review to review the negative examination report or supplementary examination report within 2 months from the receipt of the Notice of Intention to Refuse.

Patentee can provide a written submission including arguments and/or amendments to overcome the unresolved objections.

If all the objections are resolved, a Notice of Eligibility will be issued. Otherwise, a Notice of Refusal will be issued and the application will be refused.

3. Voluntary Amendments

Voluntary amendments to the application can be made at any time before patent is granted.

Amendments are not allowed after search/examination is requested and before issuance of an office action.

3. Voluntary Amendments (Restricted)

Voluntary amendments are only allowed before requesting substantive or supplementary examination.

Further amendments can only be made in response to an office action from the Examiner.

4. Request for Extension of time (Short)

Patentee may request for a one-time extension of time for up to 3 months to extend certain deadlines.

A further discretionary extension may be requested with a valid reason.

4. Request for extension of time (Long)

Patentee may request for an extension of time for up to 6 months or 18 months to extend certain deadlines.

A further discretionary extension may be requested with a valid reason.

5. Post-Grant Search & Examination

Patentee may request for a post grant search and examination to consider new prior arts not previously considered in the search and examination report.

5. No Post-Grant Search and Examination

Post-grant search and examination procedure is no longer allowed after the patent is granted.

6. Patent Restoration (Strict)

A lapsed patent may be restored within 30 months from the date on which the patent ceased to have effect.

Patentee must provide valid reasons that meet the strict “reasonable care” standard.

6. Patent Restoration

A lapsed patent may be restored within 18 months from the date on which the patent ceased to have effect.

Patentee must provide valid reasons that meet the “unintentional” standard.

7. Surrendering of Patent

Patentee may surrender his patent by filing a request which will be published for third party opposition. The patent is deemed surrendered if no opposition if filed within the prescribed time period.

7. Surrendering of Patent

Patentee may only surrender his patent after certifying that each person having a right in the patent has been given at least 3 months’ notice of the surrender and has no objection to the surrender.

Positive grant system in more detail

Under the positive grant system, only applications that meet the patentability requirements can proceed to grant, i.e. only if a Notice of Eligibility is issued. The Notice of Eligibility is issued if the claims of the application are found to be novel, inventive and industrially applicable after ‘Substantive Examination’ or ‘Supplementary Examination’.

On the other hand, if applications do not meet the patentability requirements, a Notice of Intention to Refuse will be issued. The applicant would then have the option to request an ‘Examination Review’ or just allow the application to be finally refused.

‘Substantive Examination’ and ‘Supplementary Examination’ will be discussed further below:

Substantive Examination

The applicant may file a request for local substantive examination within 36 months from the filing date or priority date, whichever applies. The substantive examination is performed based on either (i) a local search report issued by Singapore (only if a request for search is filed within 13 months from the filing date or priority date); or (ii) a foreign search report issued for a corresponding foreign application. Alternatively, the applicant may request a combined search and examination within the 36-month deadline.

If the Examiner has objections on e.g. the patentability of the claims, clarity of the specification, support of the claims, additional matter, and/or double patenting, a Written Opinion will be issued detailing each objection. A response to the Written Opinion must be filed within 5 months from issuance of each Written Opinion. The substantive examination process must be completed within 18 months from the issuance date of the first Written Opinion.

Upon completion of the substantive examination process, the Examiner will issue a Substantive Examination Report along with a Notice of Eligibility or a Notice of Intention to Refuse. For the latter, the applicant would then have the option to file a request for an Examination Review or allow the application to be finally refused.

Supplementary Examination

Apart from the Substantive Examination option discussed above, the applicant may opt to obtain a Singapore patent on the basis of foreign examination results issued for a corresponding foreign application, by filing a request for Supplementary Examination within 54 months from the filing date or priority date, whichever applies. Required documents for filing the request include (i) a copy of either the corresponding foreign patent or the final examination results with allowed claims referred to in the results; and (ii) a table setting out how each Singapore claim is related to the allowed claims of corresponding application.

If the Examiner has objections on e.g. the support of the claims, additional matter, and/or double patenting, a Written Opinion will be issued detailing each objection. A response to the Written Opinion must be filed within 3 months from issuance of each Written Opinion. The supplementary examination process must be completed within 6 months from the issuance date of the first Written Opinion.

Upon completion of the supplementary examination process, the Examiner will issue a Supplementary Examination Report along with a Notice of Eligibility or a Notice of Intention to Refuse. For the latter, the applicant would then have the option to file a request for an Examination Review or allow the application to be finally refused.

We hope that the above information is helpful to you. Meanwhile, if you have any question on any of the above information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

 

 

 

«StartPrev12345678910NextEnd»
Page 1 of 27