The recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 52 provides much needed clarity on the laws concerning entitlement to patent ownership. The Plaintiff, the National University Hospital (“NUH”), had worked with a software development company, Cicada Cube (“Cicada”), to develop […]
Publications
Singapore – Similarity of Trade Marks Between Apple and Swatch Dismissed
In Apple Inc. v Swatch AG (Swatch S.A.) (Swatch Ltd.) [2018] SGIPOS 15, Apple Inc. (the ‘Opponent’) opposed the application to register the mark ‘Tick Different’ (the ‘Application Mark’) in Classes 9 and 14 made by Swatch AG (‘the Applicant’). The Opponent contended that the mark’s registration should be refused due to similarity with its […]
Singapore Trademark Revocation: Athleta Cannot Escape on Foot
In Bigfoot Internet Ventures Pte. Ltd. v Athleta (ITM) Inc. [2018] SGIPOS 10 (decision issued 2nd July 2018), a Singapore-registered trade mark held by a large American clothing conglomerate was partially revoked on grounds of non-use. The mark “ATHLETA” (the “Proprietors’ Mark”), owned by Athleta (ITM) Inc. (“the Proprietors”) – a wholly-owned subsidiary of US […]
Monster Fails in Another Singapore Trademark Opposition Case
For the fourth time in less than 12 months, Monster Energy Company (‘MEC’) initiated trademark opposition proceedings at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) with the aim at preventing another party’s registration of a mark containing the word “MONSTER”. In this case, MEC, the proprietor of the mark “MONSTER ENERGY”, challenged its most high-profile […]
Laos – Patent, Design and Plant Variety Opposition Procedures Now Available
Laos’s new Law on Intellectual Property No.38/NA of November 15, 2017 was published electronically in the Laos official gazette on May 25, 2018, and became effective 15 days subsequent to its publication. This supersedes the previous Law on Intellectual Property No. 01/NA dated December 20, 2011. The new legislation brings reform to a variety of […]
Indonesia Trademark Cancellation Fails on Inadequate Documentation
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 […]
New Procedures for Trademark Opposition in Laos
Laos’s new Law on Intellectual Property No.38/NA of November 15, 2017 was published electronically in the Laos official gazette on May 25, 2018, and became effective 15 days subsequent to its publication. This supersedes the previous Law on Intellectual Property No. 01/NA dated December 20, 2011. The new legislation brings reform to a variety of […]
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 […]