Region: Singapore

City Chain enjoined from using 'quatrefoil' device

In <i>Louis Vuitton Malletier v City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd</i>, the High Court of Singapore has ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton in a dispute involving watches bearing a flower design similar to Louis Vuitton's famous 'quatrefoil' designs. Among other things, the court took judicial notice of the fact that people are put off certain luxury brands because of the many cheap lookalikes available.

04 March 2009

Eastern promise for IP practices in Singapore

The Singapore legal services market is set to open up following the government’s decision to grant qualifying foreign law practice licences to six international law firms. Although the firms are likely to focus their expansion efforts on banking and finance, <i>WTR</i> uncovers that the possibility of strengthening IP practices in the region could prove equally as enticing.

20 January 2009

LOVE trademark for jewellery held to be invalid

In <i>Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd</i>, the High Court of Singapore has held that the trademark LOVE for jewellery was invalid under the Trademarks Act and ordered that it be revoked. Among other things, the court found that the trademark LOVE designated one of the intended purposes of jewellery.

30 October 2008

Owner of PANASONIC mark prevents registration of PENSONIC

In <i>Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd v Pensonic Corporation Sdn Bhd</i>, the registrar of trademarks has upheld an opposition filed by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd, the owner of the PANASONIC mark, against the registration of the mark PENSONIC. Among other things, the registrar held that PENSONIC was confusingly similar to PANASONIC from an aural and conceptual point of view.

10 October 2008

Mobil fails to prevent registration of MOBIS

In <i>Mobil Petroleum Company Inc v Hyundai Mobis</i>, the High Court has affirmed a decision dismissing an opposition filed by Mobil Petroleum Company Inc, the owner of the well-known MOBIL mark, against the registration of the mark MOBIS. The finding that the goods covered by the marks were dissimilar was decisive for the court in deciding that Mobil had not made out the grounds of opposition.

16 September 2008

LOLANE is not confusingly similar to ORLANE

The registrar of trademarks has dismissed an opposition filed by Orlane SA, the owner of the trademark ORLANE for cosmetic products, against the application to register the mark LOLANE for similar goods. Among other things, the registrar disregarded the well-established principle set forth in London Lubricants on the grounds that this case was decided in the 1920s.

13 June 2008

High Court uses discretion to maintain registration of ROOSTER

The High Court has dismissed an action for the invalidation of the trademark ROOSTER for cordyceps (medicinal fungi). Although the court found that at the time of application for registration ROOSTER was used in Singapore on cordyceps of other suppliers, it held that it had the discretion on whether to invalidate the mark and decided not to do so.

22 May 2008

LUCKY DREAM strikes lucky

The Singapore Trademarks Registry has dismissed an opposition filed by the owner of the marks LUCKY STRIKE and LUCKIES against the application to register the mark LUCKY DREAM. Among other things, the registrar held that there was no real risk of deception or confusion which would lead customers to believe that goods bearing the mark LUCKY DREAM originated from the opponent.

27 February 2008

SWEETCAMEL is not confusingly similar to CAMEL

The Singapore Trademarks Registry has dismissed an opposition filed by Worldwide Brands Inc against the application for the registration of the mark SWEETCAMEL in respect of clothing. Among other things, the registrar found that the SWEETCAMEL and CAMEL marks were dissimilar and that Worldwide had failed to show that its CAMEL marks were well known in Classes 18 and 25 of the Nice Classification.

26 October 2007

VIGOSS and MEN VIGOSS confusingly similar

The Singapore Trademarks Registry has invalidated the mark MEN VIGOSS for clothing on the grounds that it was confusingly similar to the mark VIGOSS for the same type of goods. The registrar found that 'VIGOSS' was the dominant element in the junior mark and the addition of the element 'MEN' gave the impression only that the junior mark was part of the senior mark's line of clothing.

11 July 2007

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content