Sarika v Ferrero: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off Dispute

In Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd against the High Court's decision in favor of Ferrero SpA for trade mark infringement and passing off. The dispute arose from Sarika's use of the 'Nutello' sign for a coffee beverage, which Ferrero claimed infringed its 'Nutella' trade mark. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Sarika had infringed Ferrero's trade mark and engaged in passing off.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA involves a trade mark infringement and passing off dispute over the 'Nutello' sign. The court dismissed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Ferrero SpARespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
VK RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Tee JimLee & Lee
Jeremiah ChewLee & Lee
Zechariah Chan Jin HanLee & Lee
M. RavindranRavindran Associates
Sukumar KaruppiahRavindran Associates
Justin Blaze GeorgeRavindran Associates

4. Facts

  1. Sarika, a Singaporean company, operates a chain of cafes under the name 'tcc – the connoisseur concerto'.
  2. Ferrero, an Italian company, manufactures and retails confectionery, including 'Nutella' spread.
  3. Sarika introduced a coffee beverage under the 'Nutello' sign in its cafes in August 2007.
  4. The 'Nutello' beverage contained espresso, milk foam, cocoa powder, and Nutella spread.
  5. Ferrero sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sarika in December 2009, objecting to the use of the 'Nutello' sign.
  6. Sarika discontinued sales of the 'Nutello' beverage in July 2010.
  7. Ferrero is the registered proprietor of the 'Nutella' trade mark.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA, Civil Appeal No 102 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 56
  2. Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA, , [2011] SGHC 176

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sarika introduced 'Nutello' beverage.
Ferrero issued cease-and-desist letter.
Sarika requested extension to respond.
Ferrero refused extension request.
Ferrero instituted Suit No 9 of 2010.
Sarika discontinued 'Nutello' beverage sales.
Civil Appeal No 102 of 2011
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trade Mark Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found trade mark infringement under s 27(2)(b), s 55(2), and s 55(3)(a) and s 55(3)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similarity of Marks
      • Similarity of Goods
      • Likelihood of Confusion
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] RPC 281
      • [2006] SGCA 14
  2. Passing Off
    • Outcome: The court found that the Appellant had committed the tort of passing off.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Goodwill
      • Misrepresentation
      • Damage
  3. Dilution
    • Outcome: The court found dilution by blurring under s 55(3)(b)(i) TMA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Blurring
      • Unfair Manner

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Trade Mark Infringement

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] RPC 281England and WalesCited for the step-by-step approach to trade mark infringement analysis.
The Polo/Lauren Co, LP Shop In Department Store Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2006] SGCA 14SingaporeCited for adopting the step-by-step approach to trade mark infringement analysis.
Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler SportEuropean Court of JusticeYes[1998] RPC 199European UnionCited in contrast to the adopted approach for trade mark infringement analysis.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer IncEuropean Court of JusticeYes[1999] RPC 117European UnionCited in contrast to the adopted approach for trade mark infringement analysis.
Mediacorp News Pte Ltd v Astro All Asia Networks plcHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 496SingaporeCited for the principle that not all three aspects of similarity (visual, aural, conceptual) must be made out for a finding of similarity.
Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers IncHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 2 SLR 459SingaporeCited for the principle that a trade-off between the three aspects of similarity can be made.
City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton MalletierHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 1 SLR 382SingaporeCited for the principle that similarity is a question of fact and degree for the court to determine.
Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Uni-Charm Corporation)High Court of SingaporeYes[2007] 1 SLR 1082SingaporeCited for the principle that similarity is a question of fact and degree for the court to determine.
Chai Chyau Ling (doing business as Racetech Auto) v Racing Technology Pte LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2009] SGHC 105SingaporeCited for the definition of an 'average consumer'.
Caterpillar Inc v Ong Eng Peng (formerly trading as Catplus International)High Court of SingaporeYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 669SingaporeCited for the principle that the comparison to be made is one of 'mark for mark'.
Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections Pte LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 369SingaporeCited for the principle that for registered word marks, use of the word in any font or stylisation would be infringing.
Morny Ld’s Trade Marks, in the Matter ofHigh CourtYes(1951) 68 RPC 131England and WalesCited for the principle that registration of a word in block capitals covers use of that word in any clearly legible form.
Festina Lotus SA v Romanson Co LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2010] 4 SLR 552SingaporeCited for the principle that conceptual similarity involves the consideration of the ideas that lie behind or inform the earlier mark.
Hyundai Mobis v Mobil Petroleum Company IncIntellectual Property Office of SingaporeYes[2007] SGIPOS 12SingaporeCited for aural similarity in word marks.
Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald’s CorpHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 629SingaporeCited for making allowances for imperfect recollection and careless pronunciation and speech.
Aristoc, Ld v Rysta, LdHouse of LordsYes(1945) 62 RPC 65United KingdomCited for the principle that first impressions mattered in determining aural similarity between words.
Vedial v OHIM (Hubert) (Case C – 106/03PEuropean Court of JusticeYes[2005] ETMR 23European UnionCited for the principle that one should look at the proposed specification of the new mark against the specification of the existing registered mark in determining identity or similarity.
The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 816SingaporeCited for the principle that where goods fell within the same class in the ICGS classification system, the goods ought very likely be regarded as similar.
Kellogg Co v Pacific Food Products Sdn BhdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 904SingaporeCited for including the extraneous factors in the analysis.
McDonald’s Corp v Future Enterprises Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 177SingaporeCited for including the extraneous factors in the analysis.
Saville Perfumery Ltd v June Perfect LtdCourt of AppealYes(1941) 58 RPC 147England and WalesCited for the view that extraneous factors should be excluded from the confusion analysis.
Julius Samann ltd v Tetrosyl LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] FSR 42England and WalesCited for the view that extraneous factors should be excluded from the confusion analysis.
In the matter of an Application by the Pianotist Co Ld for the Registration of a Trade MarkHigh CourtYes(1906) 23 RPC 774England and WalesCited for calling for all the surrounding circumstances to be considered.
Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and AnotherHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 216SingaporeCited for the legislative wording of s 55(2) TMA is modelled after Article 4(1)(b) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s Joint Recommendations Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well known Marks.
Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants PlcHigh CourtYes[1995] FSR 713England and WalesCited for whether there has been trade mark infringement has been said to be more of a matter of feel than science.
Intel Corp Inc v CPM United KingdomEuropean Court of JusticeYes[2008] ETMR 13European UnionCited for a finding of a likelihood of confusion would assist a dilution by blurring claim.
Adidas-Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV v FitnessworldEuropean Court of JusticeYes[2004] FSR 21European UnionCited for confusion was not a precondition to establishing liability under the dilution provision in Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive.
The New York City Triathlon LLC v NYC Triathlon Club IncUS District CourtYes704 F Supp 2d 305United StatesCited for the court there likewise did not use the language of confusion analysis when making its finding of dilution.
Whirlpool Corporation v Kenwood LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] RPC 2England and WalesCited for an additional factor has to be shown for the dilution to be unfair as required by s 55(3)(b)(i) TMA.
Citicorp and Citibank, N.A v Incepta Group plcFirst Board of AppealYesCase R 821/2005-1European UnionCited for what sort of harm or injury would suffice for a dilution action.
Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYes[2011] SGCA 37SingaporeCited for actual damage needs to be proved where the period of infringement had passed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 2(1) TMASingapore
s 27(2)(b) TMASingapore
s 55(2) TMASingapore
s 55(3)(a) TMASingapore
s 55(3)(b)(i) TMASingapore
s 22(1)(a) TMASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Nutella
  • Nutello
  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Dilution
  • Likelihood of Confusion
  • Similarity of Marks
  • Similarity of Goods

15.2 Keywords

  • Trade Mark
  • Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Nutella
  • Nutello
  • Singapore
  • Coffee
  • Confectionery

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademarks90
Passing Off85
Commercial Law30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Trade Mark Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Passing Off