Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2025] SGHC 122
This is the first Singapore decision by a High Court Judge on the quantum of statutory damages under the multi-factorial framework in s 31(6) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act.
Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2025] SGHC 122
This is the first Singapore decision by a High Court Judge on the quantum of statutory damages under the multi-factorial framework in s 31(6) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act.
Singapore Court of Appeal considers trade mark infringement and passing off claim involving internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGCA_28
As discussed in my comment on the High Court decision of this case here, this case concerned the defendant’s use of keywords “east coast podiatry”, “Podiatry East Coast”, and/or “Podiatrist East Coast” (the “Signs”) in Google ads. The ads appeared in various forms with links redirecting users to the defendant’s website, which did not contain the claimant’s Mark or any of its variants. The defendant used the Signs to advertise the impending opening of a new branch at the East Coast area, following advice from a Google consultant to use location-based keywords. The Court of Appeal (CA) dismissed the claimant’s appeal.
Can the use of a competitor’s name in your Google ad words amount to intellectual property / trademark infringement and passing off?
Maybe.
Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32
Significance: Singapore High Court holds that US Polo Association’s trade mark is not so similar to Polo Lauren’s trade mark.
Continue reading “Case Update: Polo/Lauren Co LP v United States Polo Association [2016] SGHC 32”