In Fox Head, Inc. v Fox Street Wear Pte Ltd  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 […]
Similarity of Marks Examined in Singapore ‘Monster’ Case
In Monster Energy Company v Glamco Co., Ltd.  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 […]
What Constitutes a Family of Trademarks in Singapore?
McCHICKEN®, McNUGGETS® and McFLURRY® immediately conjure up images of the ‘family of marks’ owned by McDonald’s Corporation. Indeed, the ‘family of marks’ doctrine is well-established in trademark law. Be that as it may, can it be said that there exists a family of marks when they are not owned by the same entity? What needs […]
Louis Vuitton Counterfeit Case in Singapore Clarifies Definitions of ‘Import’ and ‘Export’ for Trade Mark Infringement Purposes
In the recent Singapore High Court case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd  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  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  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 […]