This recent Intellectual Property Office of Singapore decision delved into the registrability of an AMAZON-formative mark sought to be registered by a Singapore-incorporated company. Background Survivalverse Pte Ltd (the applicant) is a Singapore-incorporated company that principally develops videogames and software, which applied to register the mark (the application mark) in Classes 9 and 41, to be […]
Indonesia Courts Issues Landmark Decision Affecting Non-Use Period of Trademarks
The Constitutional Court of Indonesia issued a landmark decision on 30 July 2024. The case involved a micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME) owner of the HDCVI and Logo trade mark, facing a lawsuit for the deletion of his trade mark on the basis that it had not been used for three (3) consecutive years. […]
THAILAND: What Reclassifying Cannabis Means for Trademark Registration
The anticipated reclassification of cannabis as a narcotic in Thailand is not expected to affect the two-year-old relaxation of the historical ban on trademarks featuring cannabis leaf designs or names associated with cannabis. In 2018, Thailand legalized cannabis for medicinal and industrial purposes, challenging its traditionally stringent drug laws. In 2022, the Thai Food and […]
Vietnam’s First Criminal Prosecution for Illegal Streaming Sets New Precedent in IP Law Enforcement
A landmark decision was issued on 19 April 2024 as Vietnam’s People’s Court of Hanoi found an accused guilty of illegally broadcasting through BestBuy IPTV service football matches of the English Premier League. It was the first time in Vietnam that a case was filed in criminal court for Copyright Under the Criminal Law – […]
SINGAPORE: IPOS Examiner Rejects Registration of Scientific Abbreviation
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has refused to register a scientific abbreviation as a trademark even though the applicant was the first to discover the substance. In the matter of a trademark application by BioMedical Research Group Inc. & Anor. ([2024] SGIPOS 3), BioMedical Research Group Inc. and Macrophi Inc. sought to register the mark in […]
Copyright infringement: A ground for invalidation and opposition of trademark in Singapore
Background Henkel Polybit Industries Ltd. is a Middle Eastern entity which develops and produces water-proofing and corrosion-inhibiting sealants and coating specifically for the construction industry. They operate in at least 25 jurisdictions worldwide including in Singapore. Initially known as Polybit Industries Ltd. which was incorporated in 1995 in the United Arab Emirates, they were acquired […]
R We Similar?
A recent Intellectual Property Office of Singapore decision in the matter of Google LLC v. Green Radar (Singapore) Pte Ltd delved into the complexities of trademark law in Singapore while highlighting the crucial balance between protecting one’s brand and promoting market competition. Background Green Radar (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (the applicant) is a Singapore-incorporated company and […]
Indonesia Copyright Law
Copyright operates under the principle of “first to use,” meaning that the first person to disclose or publish a work is considered the copyright owner. This differs from other intellectual property rights, which typically follow the principle of “first to file”. Rights conferred under the Copyright Law in Indonesia include copyright and related right. Copyright […]
Calculation of Deadlines According to Indonesia Trademark Law
In Indonesia, the practice of trademark law differs from that of some other jurisdictions in terms of deadline calculation. Article 1 point (22) of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications states “Day means work day”. As such, while deadlines are often counted on running calendar days, in Indonesia, they are typically […]
Successful Mediation challenges the archaic notion of “an eye for an eye”
A first successful mediation under the WIPO-Singapore ASEAN Mediation Programme (“AMP”) saw parties amicably settling their dispute in October 2023. Both disputants’ primary business was in eyecare and eye examination. The matter concerned the use of Chew’s Optics (“Party A”)’s registered trade mark(s) under Class 35: Party A had already been utilising the said trade […]