Fragrance Foodstuff v Bee Cheng Hiang: Copyright & Trademark Infringement Dispute

In Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of Fragrance Foodstuff, granting an injunction to restrain Bee Cheng Hiang from infringing their copyright in a logo. The case involved a copyright and trademark infringement claim where Bee Cheng Hiang reproduced Fragrance Foodstuff's logo in advertisements without consent. The court rejected Bee Cheng Hiang's defenses, including fair dealing and use of the trademark for identification purposes.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Copyright and trademark infringement case involving logo reproduction in advertisements. The court ruled in favor of Fragrance Foodstuff, granting an injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte LtdDefendantCorporationInjunction Granted AgainstLost
Fragrance Foodstuff Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationInjunction GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Siew HongInfinitus Law Corp
Tan Tee JimAllen & Gledhill
Elaine TanAllen & Gledhill

4. Facts

  1. Fragrance Foodstuff commissioned a logo (the Work) in October 1994.
  2. The Work was first published in Singapore in January 1995.
  3. Fragrance Foodstuff registered the Work as a trademark in class 30.
  4. Bee Cheng Hiang reproduced the Work in advertisements without consent.
  5. Bee Cheng Hiang argued confusion between the two companies.
  6. Fragrance Foodstuff claimed Bee Cheng Hiang's actions damaged their reputation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd, Suit 141/2002, [2002] SGHC 142

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Fragrance Foodstuffs Pte Ltd incorporated
Plaintiffs commissioned Chionh Cher Tin to create a logo
The Work was first published in Singapore
Plaintiffs applied to register the Work as a trademark
Defendants published advertisements in newspapers
Report in Lianhe Zaobao quoted the defendants' general manager
Chionh formally assigned rights to the plaintiffs
Plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to the defendants regarding copyright infringement
Plaintiffs issued writ alleging copyright and trademark infringement
Court granted plaintiffs an order for infringing copyright in the Work

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in the Work.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reproduction of artistic work without consent
      • Fair dealing defence
  2. Trademark Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants' use of the Work was not for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or licensee.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of trademark in advertising
      • Use of trademark to identify goods or services
  3. Fair Dealing Defence
    • Outcome: The court rejected the defendants' fair dealing defence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Public interest
      • Current events

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Trademark Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Trademark Infringement
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Food

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Anacon Corporation Limited v Environmental Research Technology LimitedEnglish CourtYes[1994] FLR 659England and WalesCited regarding the definition of a literary work, but ultimately disagreed with in the context of the artistic work in question.
Beloff v Pressdram LtdEnglish CourtYes[1973] 1 All ER 241England and WalesCited regarding the defence of fair dealing, but distinguished based on the facts of the present case.
Hubbard & anor v Vosper & anorEnglish Court of AppealYes[1972] 2 QB 84England and WalesCited regarding the definition of fair dealing, but distinguished based on the facts of the present case.
Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans & orsEnglish CourtYes[1985] 1 QB 526England and WalesCited regarding public interest, but distinguished based on the facts of the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63)Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Copyright
  • Trademark
  • Infringement
  • Fair dealing
  • Logo
  • Advertisement
  • Confusion
  • Bakwa
  • Artistic work

15.2 Keywords

  • Copyright
  • Trademark
  • Infringement
  • Fragrance Foodstuff
  • Bee Cheng Hiang
  • Singapore
  • Logo
  • Advertisement

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademark Infringement90
Copyrights90
Trademarks90
Well Known Trade Marks50
Advertising and Marketing40
Groundless threats of infringement proceedings30
Commercial Law30
Commercial Disputes30
Contract Law20
Construction Defects10

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Copyright
  • Trademark