Publications

Singapore Court of Appeal Clarifies Stance on Entitlement to Patent Ownership

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]

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 […]