In Yayasan Korpri Banjar v Yayasan Marta Berlian Husada DK (1314 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2017) [published 26th April 2018], the Supreme Court of Indonesia upheld a decision of the Commercial Court to reject a trademark cancellation suit. Yayasan Korpri Banjar (“the Plaintiff”) filed for cancellation of the device mark AKBID MARTAPURA (pictured below) held by Yayasan Marta Berlian […]
Singapore Trademarks: Passing Off as a Fox not a Cunning Move
In Fox Head, Inc. v Fox Street Wear Pte Ltd [2018] SGIPOS 8, Singaporean clothing distributor Fox Street Wear Pte Ltd (‘the Applicant’) applied to register the below mark (‘the Application Mark’) in Class 25. This was the same mark which had previously been refused registration in Singapore in Class 18, via a successful opposition […]
Indonesia Trademark Cancellation Action Upheld Despite Late Filing
In Djunatan Prambudi v PT Profilia Indotech (7 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2018), the Supreme Court of Indonesia has rejected a Petition to reconsider its decision to deny an appeal for the overturning of a decision of the District Court to cancel three trademarks. Djunatan Prambudi was the owner of three registered marks: “PROFIL 88” (in Classes 6 and […]
Similarity of Marks Examined in Singapore 'Monster' Case
In Monster Energy Company v Glamco Co., Ltd. [2018] SGIPOS 7, multinational energy drinks manufacturer Monster (‘the Opponent’) unsuccessfully opposed an application to register the mark ‘SWEET MONSTER’ (‘the Application Mark’) in Class 30 by Korean dessert purveyor Glamco (‘the Applicant’). The Registrar denied the Opponent’s three grounds of opposition. The first was that, following […]
Singapore – What Constitutes a Family of Trademarks?
McCHICKEN®, McNUGGETS® and McFLURRY® immediately conjure up images of the ‘family of marks’ owned by McDonald’s Corporation. Indeed, the ‘family of marks’ doctrine is well-established in trademark law. Be that as it may, can it be said that there exists a family of marks when they are not owned by the same entity? What needs […]
Singapore Trademark Invalidation on Bad Faith
Though often pleaded, there are not many examples of oppositions succeeding on grounds of bad faith in Singapore. To succeed, the opponent will usually need to show that the applicant’s conduct fell below the acceptable standards of commercial behaviour. Aside from the evidential hurdles, these standards can be tricky to define in the context of […]
Mattel, Inc. v Aman Bijal Mehta: A Loss of Face for 'Barbie'?
“Hi, Barbie….Hi, Ken! Do you wanna go for a ride? Sure, Ken! Jump in...I'm a Barbie girl in the Barbie world……Life in plastic, it's fantastic! You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere…..Imagination, life is your creation…..Come on, Barbie, let's go party!......I'm a blond bimbo girl in a fantasy world…..Dress me up, make it tight, […]
A Prefix Can Fix - Apple's iPad v Xiaomi's MI PAD
A clash between two tech giants before the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), Apple Inc. v Xiaomi Singapore Pte Ltd [2017] SGIPOS 10, ended when the ruling favored Xiaomi (“the Applicant”) to register the mark ‘MI PAD’ for its computer tablet products in the face of a move from Apple Inc. (“the Opponent”), the […]
Singapore Trademark Invalidation Action is Big Boxing Bout
Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Big Box Corporation Pte Ltd [2017] SGIPOS 5 On 26 January 2005, Big Box Corporation Pte Ltd (“the Proprietor”) secured registration for the trade mark in class 35 in Singapore, with respect to the following: “The bringing together, for the benefit of others, of a variety of goods (excluding the […]
Singapore Parallel Imports – Court Clarifies Scope of the Parallel Importation Defence
Introduction Parallel imports are genuine goods that are put on the market by a trade mark proprietor in one country, and subsequently purchased and imported into another country for resale. Singapore permits parallel importation. As such, it is an issue that arises frequently in practice, but is rarely litigated on. In Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl […]