Da Vinci Collection v Richemont: Trade Mark Infringement & Interim Injunction

Da Vinci Collection Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the High Court of Singapore to grant Richemont International SA an interim injunction restraining Da Vinci Collection from advertising a composite mark in relation to watches and watch straps in conjunction with the movie "The Da Vinci Code". Richemont claimed trade mark infringement of its registered name mark "DA VINCI". The Court of Appeal, with Chan Sek Keong CJ delivering the grounds of decision, allowed the appeal, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy for Richemont and that the balance of convenience favored Da Vinci Collection.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Da Vinci Collection appealed an interim injunction granted to Richemont for trade mark infringement. The court allowed the appeal, finding damages an adequate remedy.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Richemont International SARespondentCorporationInterim Injunction Set AsideLost
Da Vinci Collection Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Dedar Singh GillDrew & Napier LLC
Penny LengDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Tee JimLee & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Richemont is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “IWC” and the name mark “DA VINCI” in Class 14 for watches and watch straps.
  2. Da Vinci Collection applied to register a composite mark in Class 14 for watches and watch straps, which Richemont opposed.
  3. Da Vinci Collection advertised a diamond-encrusted watch bearing the initials DV in conjunction with the release of the movie “The Da Vinci Code”.
  4. Richemont claimed Da Vinci Collection was infringing its name mark by selling watches under the name mark “DA VINCI” and the composite mark.
  5. The Judge granted summary judgment to Richemont for infringement of its name mark but the claim regarding the composite mark was set for trial.
  6. The interim injunction restrained Da Vinci Collection from advertising the composite mark in relation to watches and watch straps in conjunction with the movie.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Da Vinci Collection Pte Ltd v Richemont International SA, CA 57/2006, [2006] SGCA 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Da Vinci Collection applied to register the composite mark in Class 14.
Richemont commenced Suit No 800 of 2005 against Da Vinci Collection for trade mark infringement.
Judge gave summary judgment to Richemont against Da Vinci Collection for infringement of the name mark.
Richemont applied for an interim injunction.
Judge granted the interim injunction.
Movie “The Da Vinci Code” scheduled to be released in Singapore.
Court of Appeal set aside the interim injunction.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trade Mark Infringement
    • Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on the likelihood of confusion but found that damages would be an adequate remedy.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Likelihood of confusion
      • Use of composite mark
      • Reputation and goodwill in trade mark
  2. Interim Injunction
    • Outcome: The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favored the appellant, setting aside the interim injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Serious question to be tried
      • Adequacy of damages
      • Balance of convenience

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Interim Injunction
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trade Mark Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Trade Mark Infringement

11. Industries

  • Retail
  • Luxury Goods
  • Jewellery
  • Entertainment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon LtdHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 396England and WalesCited for the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions, specifically the criteria of serious question to be tried, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience.
The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2006] SGCA 14SingaporeReferred to by the appellant regarding the likelihood of confusion in trade mark infringement cases.
Baywatch Production Co Ltd v Home Video ChannelFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1996) 37 IPR 12AustraliaReferred to by the appellant regarding the likelihood of confusion in trade mark infringement cases.
Elan Digital Systems Ltd v Elan Computers LtdHigh Court of JusticeYes[1984] FSR 373England and WalesCited by the respondent to argue that damage to reputation and goodwill is always irreparable. The court distinguished this case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 27(1)Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 27(2)Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 22Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 105Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 23Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 7(6)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trade mark
  • Name mark
  • Composite mark
  • Interim injunction
  • Likelihood of confusion
  • Reputation
  • Goodwill
  • Balance of convenience
  • Advertising campaign
  • Watches
  • Da Vinci Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Trade mark infringement
  • Interim injunction
  • Da Vinci Code
  • Likelihood of confusion
  • Advertising
  • Watches

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademarks90
Trademark Infringement90
Interim Injunction80
Injunctions75
Trade names70

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Trade Marks
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions