In the recent Singapore High Court case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 305, the Court held that a freight forwarder who was unwittingly sent counterfeit goods into Singapore for transshipment was not liable for trademark infringement. The case concerned two shipments from China bound for Indonesia via Singapore. The […]
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 […]
Singapore Trademark Revocation – Apple’s Sherlock Killed Off!
Despite the recent popularity surge in old technological phenomena, with Nintendo’s Pokémon being ubiquitous on small hand-held screens again, and Nokia having relaunched – to widespread excitement – its iconic 3310 phone, it is not always easy for tech giants to hold on to past products and features in the hope of one day re-marketing […]
Audi Drives the A-One Out of Singapore
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 […]
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. […]