In a bid to bolster its intellectual property portfolio in Singapore, German car manufacturer Audi (‘the applicant’) recently succeeded partially in the revocation of a device mark in Audi AG v Lim Ching Kwang. At the hearing before the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), the applicant had applied for both revocation of Mr Lim […]
Publications
Cambodia Becomes First Asian EPO Validation State
On January 23rd 2017 in Phnom Penh, an agreement was signed between Cambodian Senior Minister for Industry Cham Prasidh and Benoit Batistelli, President of the European Patent Office, stipulating that patents registered with the European Patent Office (EPO) will be valid in Cambodia, with a date of 1st July 2017 set as the projected entry […]
Singapore: No Snap Judgment on Similarity of Marks
The recent opposition matter between two mobile software application manufacturers before the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) of Apptitude Pte Ltd v. MGG Software Pte Ltd was a battle for trademark rights in an expanding niche market. In ultimately failing on all grounds of its opposition, Apptitude’s (the opponent) case showed that important criteria […]
No Break Given to Nestlé in Kit Kat Shape Mark Appeal in Singapore
A Kit Kat bar, with its two-finger and four-finger breakable wafers coated with chocolate, is surely one of the most famously-shaped food items that one could enjoy at a local store almost anywhere around the world to ‘have a break’ – as the product’s tagline goes. Yet, in the conclusion of a long-running dispute, Nestlé […]
The Swiss Don’t Miss in Malaysian Geographical Indications Dispute
The apex court of Malaysia – the Federal Court – recently provided its grounds of judgment in Chocosuisse Union Des Fabricants Suisses De Chocolat, Kraft Food Schweiz AG and Nestlé Suisse SA v. Maestro Swiss Chocolate Sdn. Bhd. The decision centred primarily on the tort of extended passing off and the Geographical Indications Act. […]
Singapore Patent Infringement: The Benefits of Proper Patent Marking
"Innocent infringement" – the defense every patentee dreads to hear; because if it rings true, the patent owner risks no entitlement whatsoever to claiming damages and an account of all profits made from the infringement. Proper patent marking is key and this should be very important to the patent owner in order for the full […]
Singapore : Trademark Citations based on Withdrawn, Cancelled or Abandoned Applications
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has recently changed its practice with respect to marks which are “treated as withdrawn” or “abandoned”. Earlier, the Registry practice included citing marks which were reflected on the Register as “Treated as Withdrawn”. Therefore, deemed withdrawn applications were also cited against other pending marks. With respect to abandoned […]
Singapore Trademark Cases: Use It or Lose It-When Online Use Is Not Enough
Festina Lotus S.A (Proprietor) is the registered proprietor of the FESTINA mark. While the Proprietor does not have any business presence in Singapore, it claimed to have offered goods for sale online through various third-party websites, namely www.bodying.com, www.watchshop.com and in particular, www.brandsfever.com (Brandsfever), which is accessible by Singapore consumers. The Proprietor furnished evidence of […]
Significant Changes to Indonesian Patent System
An important piece of new Indonesian patent legislation, Law No.13 of 2016, came into effect on August 26, 2016, replacing the old patent law, No.14 of 2001. Simple Patents Under the old legislation, simple patents merely covered visible product innovation. The new law has expanded the scope of protection of a simple patent to include […]
Singapore IP Policy Cases: IPOS Strengthens the Criteria on Assessment of Post-grant Amendments
In Singapore, post-grant amendments are allowed at the discretion of the court or the Registrar. The amendments are assessed under Section 84(3) of the Patents Act. The court or the Registrar may allow the amendments to the specification of the patent if: (a) The amendment does not result in disclosing additional matter; or (b) The […]