Tang Chay Seng v Tung Yang Wee Arthur: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute
In a dispute before the High Court of Singapore, Tang Chay Seng (“TCS”) sued his nephew, Tung Yang Wee, Arthur (“Arthur”), for trade mark infringement and passing off related to TCS's registered trade marks for his “Hill Street Tai Hwa Pork Noodles” stall. Arthur operated a pork noodle stall at VivoCity Food Court. Arthur applied to amend his pleadings to include the defense that TCS had consented to his use of the trade mark and culinary awards. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, allowed Arthur's application to amend his pleadings, finding that the amendments would enable the real issues between the parties to be tried without causing injustice to TCS.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to amend pleadings allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over trade mark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the defendant to amend his pleadings to include the defense of consent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Chay Seng | Plaintiff | Individual | Application to amend pleadings allowed | Neutral | |
| Tung Yang Wee Arthur | Defendant | Individual | Application to amend pleadings allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Deepak Natverlal | Yong Koh & Partners |
4. Facts
- TCS operated a pork noodle stall known as “Hill Street Tai Hwa Pork Noodles”.
- TCS was the registered proprietor of two trade marks in relation to his business.
- Arthur’s pork noodle stall at VivoCity Food Court used a signboard with the Chinese characters “???”.
- Arthur sought to plead that TCS had consented to his use of the sign “???” for the VivoCity Stall.
- Arthur sought to amend his Defence to assert that TCS had consented to the use by him of the culinary awards.
- TCS sent Arthur a congratulatory message with flowers when he started the VivoCity Stall.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Chay Seng v Tung Yang Wee Arthur, Suit No 953 of 2008 (Summons No 969 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 229
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit filed | |
| Advertisement in Lianhe Zaobao | |
| Arthur’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief dated | |
| Amendment application heard | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the defendant's application to amend his pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640
- (1884) 26 Ch D 700
- (1878) 10 Ch D 393
- [1883] 32 WR 262
- [1987] AC 189
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 235
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 451
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 224
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Outcome: Issue not decided. The court only ruled on the application to amend the pleadings.
- Category: Substantive
- Passing Off
- Outcome: Issue not decided. The court only ruled on the application to amend the pleadings.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Passing Off
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640 | Singapore | Cited for the approach that courts should take with respect to amendment of pleadings. |
| Cropper v Smith | N/A | Yes | (1884) 26 Ch D 700 | N/A | Cited regarding amendments that enable the real issues between the parties to be tried. |
| Tildesley v Harper | N/A | Yes | (1878) 10 Ch D 393 | N/A | Cited regarding amendments that enable the real issues between the parties to be tried. |
| Clarapede & Co v Commercial Union Association | N/A | Yes | [1883] 32 WR 262 | N/A | Cited regarding amendments that enable the real issues between the parties to be tried. |
| Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] AC 189 | N/A | Cited to differentiate between an amendment that clarifies an issue and one that raises a totally different issue at too late a stage. |
| Sin Leng Industries Pte Ltd v Ong Chai Teck and others | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 235 | Singapore | Cited for application of Ketteman. |
| Lam Soon Oil and Soap Manufacturing Sdn Bhd and another v Whang Tar Choung and another | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 451 | Singapore | Cited for application of Ketteman. |
| Hong Leong Finance Ltd v Famco (S) Pte Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 224 | Singapore | Cited for application of Ketteman. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trade Mark
- Passing Off
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Consent
- Culinary Awards
15.2 Keywords
- trade mark infringement
- passing off
- amendment of pleadings
- consent
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trademarks | 90 |
| Passing Off | 85 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Civil Practice | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Marks
- Civil Procedure