Search results

Selected filters:

Singapore
Portfolio Management

Article type

Topic

Sector

94 results found for your search

Sort options
21 September 2010

Trademark held not to be common misspelling

The registrar of trademarks has rejected an action filed by CBR Textiles GmbH for the invalidation of IC Companys A/S’ mark COMPANYS under Sections 7(1)(a) to (d) and 7(6) of the Singapore Trademarks Act. Among other things, the registrar held that the evidence adduced was insufficient to conclude that 'companys' was a common misspelling of 'companies'.

01 June 2010

Appropriate time to determine whether mark is an “earlier mark” clarified

The High Court has upheld a decision allowing the registration of Nike's NIKE mark in Class 3, despite Campomar’s earlier registration for NIKE in the same class. Among other things, the court held that the appropriate time to determine whether a mark was an “earlier mark” under the Trademarks Act was at the time of the opposition proceedings, and not at the time of application.

24 March 2010

GLAMOUR mark held not to have acquired distinctiveness through use

In Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc, the High Court of Singapore has allowed an appeal by Ozone Community Corp against the decision of the principal assistant registrar of trademarks to refuse Ozone’s application to register the mark HYSTERIC GLAMOUR. Ozone’s application had been opposed by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc, the owner of the GLAMOUR mark.

03 March 2010

EMPEROR MARTIN mark invalidated on grounds of bad faith and fraud

In PT Swakarya Indah Busana v Dhan International Exim Pte Ltd, the High Court has held that Dhan International Exim Pte Ltd's trademark EMPEROR MARTIN had been registered in bad faith and that the registration was tainted with fraud. Among other things, the court found that Dhan never intended to use the mark as registered.

20 November 2009

MediaCorp fails to prevent registration of red 'A' logo on appeal

In MediaCorp News Pte Ltd v Astro All Asia Networks PLC, the High Court of Singapore has dismissed MediaCorp News Pte Ltd’s appeal against a decision of the principal assistant registrar in which the latter had dismissed MediaCorp's opposition against the registration of Astro All Asia Networks PLC's logo. The parties both use logos representing a red triangle or letter 'A'.

12 November 2009

Hugo Boss successfully opposes registration of BOSS for cigarettes

In Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AG, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore has upheld Hugo Boss AG's opposition against the registration of the trademark BOSS for tobacco products. This case is part of an ongoing worldwide battle between the parties over use of the mark BOSS for cigarettes.

06 October 2009

Mobil defeated on appeal in MOBIS Case

In Mobil Petroleum Company Inc v Hyundai Mobis, the Singapore Court of Appeal has rejected an opposition by Mobil Petroleum Company Inc, the owner of the MOBIL mark, against the registration of the trademark MOBIS. Among other things, the court held that use of the MOBIS mark by Hyundai Mobis would not indicate a connection between Hyundai's goods and Mobil.

13 July 2009

No likelihood of confusion between MIO marks, says court

In Mitac International Corporation v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, the High Court has dismissed an action filed by Mitac International Corporation, a manufacturer of personal digital assistants and global positioning system devices, against Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, Singapore's leading telecommunications group. Mitac claimed that SingTel had infringed its MIO marks and sought to invalidate SingTel's own MIO marks.

07 April 2009

Court clarifies when trademark becomes “common name in the trade”

In Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore has considered for the first time whether a trademark had become a “common name in the trade” and the meaning of the phrase “customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade”.

30 October 2008

LOVE trademark for jewellery held to be invalid

In Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd, 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.

10 October 2008

Owner of PANASONIC mark prevents registration of PENSONIC

In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd v Pensonic Corporation Sdn Bhd, 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.

16 September 2008

Mobil fails to prevent registration of MOBIS

In Mobil Petroleum Company Inc v Hyundai Mobis, 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.

13 June 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.

22 May 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.

27 February 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.