The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) recently announced changes to the filing of Declaration of Actual Use (DAU) for registered marks. On 7 July 2017, the Registry issued Memorandum Circular No. 17-010 (IPOPHL MC No. 17-010; Subject: Rules and Regulations on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names and Marked or Stamped Containers of 2017) […]
Accelerated Examination in Philippines Through PPH Partnership with EPO
In recent years, the European Patent Office (EPO) has partnered with several domestic patent offices in Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programmes, with the aim of speeding up examination processes for corresponding applications filed in participating intellectual property offices. Recently, the EPO has launched new a PPH pilot programme with the patent office of the Philippines […]
Insights on Franchising: A Singapore Perspective
Singapore is a multi-racial and a multi-cultural country that demands variety in all aspects of its marketplace. Recently, news of the imminent departure of bubble tea franchise Gong Cha from Singapore has directed attention towards a new beverage brand, LiHo, started by a former franchisee of Gong Cha. While some Singaporeans are looking forward to […]
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 […]
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 […]
Han’s v. Han in Singapore: Kitchen Chaos Not Infringing
In Han’s (F&B) v. Gusttimo World [2-15] SGHC 39, Han’s filed an action against Gusttimo for infringement and passing off. Gusttimo simultaneously counterclaimed against Han’s for groundless threats of infringement proceedings and also sought to invalidate Han’s registered trademarks. Both ran businesses in the food and beverage industry in Singapore. The marks in question of […]
Indonesia: Cancellation Action against GUDANGBARU Goes Up in Smoke
PT Gudang Garam Tbk is a leading manufacturer of Indonesian kretek (clove cigarettes) and other tobacco products. Gudang garam means “salt warehouse.” The design of the company’s cigarette pack was conceptualized by its owner, Surya Winowidjojo, in 1956. By the end of 1958, the business had 500 employees producing 50 million kretek annually. Today, Gudang […]
Singapore Disclosures During Patent Litigation : To Request or Not To Request?
In Syntroleum v. Neste Oil Singapore, the Singapore High Court dismissed two sets of applications filed by the defendant for the disclosure of three categories of documents by the plaintiff in respect of Singapore Patent 172045 (the 045 patent), Singapore Patent 169053 (the 053 patent) and the United States Patent 5,705,722 (the US 722 patent). […]
Singapore: ANGRY BITE Chews Up Opposition
Kimanis Food Industries Sdn Bhd filed an application to register its mark ANGRY BITE (the “Applicant’s Mark”) in Singapore in respect of goods in Class 30. (Application No. T1204840G, filed Apr. 5, 2012.) Rovio Entertainment Ltd., best known for its game franchise Angry Birds, opposed the application on the following grounds: The Applicant’s Mark was […]
SEIKO... SEIKI... Say What? The Likelihood of Confusion in Singapore
The SEIKI trademark was recently granted registration in Singapore despite an opposition from the proprietors of the SEIKO mark. The Registrar dismissed the opposition despite finding that SEIKO is a well-known mark and that the two marks are similar. A closer examination of the Registrar’s reasoning, however, reveals that the decision is not as incongruous […]