Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc: Trade Mark Registration Dispute
Valentino Globe BV appealed against the decision of the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, who dismissed Valentino Globe BV's opposition to the registration of Pacific Rim Industries Inc's trade mark. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, dismissed the appeal on 29 June 2009, finding no error in the Registrar's decision that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks and no evidence of bad faith on the part of Pacific Rim Industries Inc.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding trade mark registration. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no likelihood of confusion or bad faith by Pacific Rim Industries Inc.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valentino Globe BV | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ponnampalam Sivakumar |
| Pacific Rim Industries Inc | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Samuel Seow, Jonathan Yuen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ponnampalam Sivakumar | Joseph Lopez & Co |
| Samuel Seow | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
| Jonathan Yuen | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Valentino Globe BV opposed the registration of Pacific Rim Industries Inc's trade mark.
- The Application Mark is an “Emilio Valentino & V Device”.
- The Application Mark was filed for registration in respect of “Leather goods; all included in Class 18”.
- Valentino Globe BV claimed the Application Mark was similar to its Valentino Marks.
- Valentino Globe BV alleged Pacific Rim Industries Inc acted in bad faith.
- The Principal Assistant Registrar dismissed Valentino Globe BV's opposition.
- Valentino Globe BV appealed the Registrar's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc, OS 844/2008, [2009] SGHC 150
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Application Mark advertised in the Trade Marks Journal | |
| Notice of opposition filed by the Appellant | |
| Appellant filed a Notice of Opposition against the registration of the Application Mark | |
| Hearing before the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks | |
| Hearing before the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks | |
| Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks delivered grounds of decision | |
| Arguments heard from both parties | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Likelihood of Confusion
- Outcome: The court found no likelihood of confusion between the Application Mark and the Appellant’s Valentino Marks.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Visual similarity
- Aural similarity
- Conceptual similarity
- Bad Faith
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellant failed to discharge its burden of proving bad faith on the Respondent’s part.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Opposition to Trade Mark Registration
9. Cause of Actions
- Trade Mark Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Trade Mark Registration
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Fashion
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling Uk Choon & anor v Public Accountants Board | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited regarding the powers of the court on appeal. |
| Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop-In-Department Store Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 690 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step approach to determine likelihood of confusion in trade mark disputes. |
| London Lubricants (1920) Ltd’s Appln | N/A | Yes | (1925) 42 RPC 264 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the beginnings of marks have more emphasis when pronounced aurally. |
| Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants Plc | N/A | Yes | [1995] FSR 713 | N/A | Cited regarding the assessment of marks and their impact on customers. |
| Nautical Concept Pte Ltd v Jeffery Mark Richard and Another | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 1071 | Singapore | Cited regarding the seriousness of alleging bad faith in trade mark applications. |
| Royal Enfield Trade Marks | N/A | Yes | [2002] RPC 508 | N/A | Cited regarding the standard of proof required for allegations of bad faith. |
| McDonald’s Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 177 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of proof required for allegations of bad faith. |
| Gromax Plasticulture Ltd v Don & Low Nonwovens Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] RPC 367 | N/A | Cited for the definition of bad faith in trade mark law. |
| Weir Warman Ltd v Research & Development Pty Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 1073 | Singapore | Cited for the appropriate test for bad faith under s 7(6) of the TMA. |
| Rothmans of Pall Mall Limited v Maycolson International Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 551 | Singapore | Cited for the appropriate test for bad faith under s 7(6) of the TMA. |
| Demon Ale Trade Mark | N/A | Yes | [2000] RPC 345 | N/A | Cited regarding the definition of bad faith in trade mark law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin Binte Ahmad Borhan | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of adverse inferences under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| Goh Ah Yew v PP | N/A | Yes | [1949] 1 MLJ 150 | N/A | Cited regarding the application of adverse inferences under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| Abu Bakar v R | N/A | Yes | [1963] 1 MLJ 288 | N/A | Cited regarding the application of adverse inferences under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| Choo Chang Teik v PP | N/A | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 423 | N/A | Cited regarding the application of adverse inferences under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 789 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of adverse inferences under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| In the Matter of Trade Mark Application 2011973 Team Lotus | N/A | Yes | In the Matter of Trade Mark Application 2011973 Team Lotus | N/A | Cited regarding the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in trade mark cases. |
| Application by Brown Shoe Company Inc. | N/A | Yes | [1959] R.P.C.29 | N/A | Cited regarding copying in trade mark cases. |
| Davy v. Garett | N/A | Yes | [1878] 7 Ch.D. 473 | N/A | Cited regarding pleading fraud. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 87 rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Rule 14 of the Trade Marks Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(2) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7(6) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act (Cap 53, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 116(g) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trade Mark
- Registration
- Likelihood of Confusion
- Bad Faith
- Valentino
- Emilio Valentino
- Class 18
- Leather Goods
15.2 Keywords
- Trade Mark Registration
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Bad Faith
- Likelihood of Confusion
- Valentino
- Emilio Valentino
16. Subjects
- Trade Marks
- Intellectual Property
17. Areas of Law
- Trade Mark Law
- Intellectual Property Law