Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor: Trade Mark Infringement & Sentencing Appeal

In Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against a 32-month sentence imposed on Ong Ah Tiong for possessing counterfeit goods with falsely applied trade marks under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act. Ong, the managing director of Hi-Star Multimedia Pte Ltd, was found with a large quantity of infringing articles. The High Court, Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the aggravating factors, the public interest in protecting intellectual property rights, and the need for a deterrent sentence. The court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Ah Tiong appeals a 32-month sentence for possessing counterfeit goods. The High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing Singapore's commitment to intellectual property rights.

1.7 Decision Date

26 January 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ong Ah Tiong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Goh Phai Cheng, Cheah Kok Lim
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal dismissed	Won	Edwin San

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Phai Cheng	Ang and Partners
Cheah Kok Lim	Ang and Partners
Edwin San	Deputy Public Prosecutor

4. Facts

The appellant was the managing director of Hi-Star Multimedia Pte Ltd.
A police raid on Hi-Star Multimedia Pte Ltd seized a large quantity of counterfeit articles.
The appellant admitted to importing counterfeit articles for sale in local and overseas markets.
The total number of infringing articles involved was 25,234.
The appellant intended to re-export the articles to recoup losses.
The appellant also sold genuine electronic products in his shop.

5. Formal Citations

Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor, MA 167/2003, [2004] SGHC 11

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-25	Hi-Star Multimedia Pte Ltd raided by police officers.
2004-01-27	Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing for Possession of Items with Falsely Applied Trade Marks
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Manifestly excessive sentence
  - Failure to consider mitigating factors
  - Failure to consider overlapping charges
- Related Cases:
  - [1986] SLR 126
  - [2001] 1 SLR 674
Principles of Sentencing
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's approach to sentencing, finding no error in principle.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Determination of sentencing tariff
  - Consideration of overlapping charges
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR 138
  - [1999] 2 SLR 523
  - [1995] 1 SLR 537
Offences under the Trade Marks Act
- Outcome: The court held that evidence of sale is not necessary for a conviction under s 49(c) and that the intention to re-export is not a mitigating factor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Necessity of evidence of sale
  - Mitigating value of intention to re-export

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Possession of articles with falsely applied trade marks under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Intellectual Property Law

11. Industries

Multimedia
Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tan Koon Swan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1986] SLR 126	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court may only interfere with a sentence if the sentencing judge made an error in the factual basis, appreciated the material incorrectly, the sentence was wrong in principle, or the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Lim Poh Tee v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 674	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court may only interfere with a sentence if the sentencing judge made an error in the factual basis, appreciated the material incorrectly, the sentence was wrong in principle, or the sentence was manifestly excessive.
PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 138	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is in the court’s discretion whether or not to consider outstanding offences upon sentencing.
PP v Tan Fook Sum	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 523	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the foremost consideration for a court in deciding on an appropriate sentence is that of public interest.
Sim Gek Yong v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 537	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the foremost consideration for a court in deciding on an appropriate sentence is that of public interest.
Oh Cheng Hai v Ong Yong Yew	High Court	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 930	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court determining a sentence under the TMA should have regard to all the circumstances in which the offences were committed, including the nature and extent of the infringements, and the manner in which the infringements were carried out.
Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 1011	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no discount will be given to an offender who pleads guilty if he is caught “red-handed” or if considerations of public policy demand a deterrent sentence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1999 Rev Ed) s 49(c)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 1999 Rev Ed) s 136(2)(a)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Trade mark infringement
Counterfeit articles
Sentencing
Deterrent sentence
Public interest
Intellectual property rights
Re-export
Mitigating factors
Aggravating factors

15.2 Keywords

Trade mark infringement
Counterfeit goods
Sentencing appeal
Singapore High Court
Criminal law
Intellectual property

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Intellectual Property Law
Trade Mark Law
Sentencing

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Trade Marks and Trade Names