Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat: Appeal Against Conviction for Trade Mark and Health Products Act Violations
Koh Peng Kiat, an optometrist, was convicted in the District Court on 14 charges: two for abetting trade mark violations under the Trade Marks Act and twelve for arranging to supply counterfeit contact lenses under the Health Products Act. Koh appealed against his conviction. The High Court allowed Koh's cross appeal against conviction, finding insufficient evidence to prove Koh's knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the goods and that he had a valid defence under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor's appeal against sentence was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Cross appeal against conviction allowed; Public Prosecutor's appeal against sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Koh Peng Kiat appeals against conviction for abetting trade mark violations and arranging supply of counterfeit health products. Appeal allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Francis Ng, Suhas Malhotra |
| Koh Peng Kiat | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Cross appeal allowed | Won | Peter Ong Lip Cheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Ng | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Suhas Malhotra | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Peter Ong Lip Cheng | Templars Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Koh Peng Kiat is an optometrist operating Eye Cottage Pte Ltd.
- Koh was convicted of abetting Neo Teck Soon and Wong Chow Fatt to possess counterfeit contact lenses.
- Koh was also convicted of arranging to supply counterfeit contact lenses to Neo and Wong.
- The counterfeit contact lenses were Freshlook ColorBlends lenses, of which CIBA Vision is the registered proprietor.
- Koh introduced Neo and Wong to Ah Seng, who supplied the counterfeit lenses.
- The District Judge found Koh guilty based on his short acquaintance with Ah Seng and the low price of the lenses.
- Neo and Wong pleaded guilty in separate criminal proceedings for possession of counterfeit lenses.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat and another Appeal, Magistrate's Appeal No 144 of 2013/01/02, [2014] SGHC 174
- PP v Koh Peng Kiat, , [2013] SGDC 244
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate's Appeal filed | |
| Cross appeal filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment of Trade Mark Infringement
- Outcome: The court held that Koh did not abet by intentionally aiding Neo and Wong in committing an offence under s 49(c) of the TMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of counterfeit nature of goods
- Intentional aiding
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 633
- AIR 1962 Bom 243
- (1994) 3 SCC 569
- Supply of Counterfeit Health Products
- Outcome: The court found it unsafe to convict Koh for the twelve charges under s 16(1)(b) of the HPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Strict liability
- Reasonable diligence
- Defences under Trade Marks Act
- Outcome: The court found that Koh raised a valid defence under proviso (i) to s 49 of the TMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable precautions
- Lack of suspicion
- Acting innocently
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 7
- [1996] 1 SLR(R) 504
- [1938] MLJ 46
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment of Trade Mark Infringement
- Arranging Supply of Counterfeit Health Products
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Intellectual Property Law
- Regulatory Law
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cigar Affair v Pacific Cigar Co | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that an offence under s 49 of the TMA may be established without mens rea. |
| Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General of Hong Kong | Privy Council | Yes | [1985] AC 1 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the presumption that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of every statutory provision creating an offence can be rebutted. |
| PP v Teo Kwang Kiang | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 560 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of every statutory provision creating an offence can be rebutted. |
| State of Maharashtra v Abdul Aziz | Bombay High Court | Yes | AIR 1962 Bom 243 | India | Cited as a conflicting authority on whether an accused must have knowledge to be convicted of a charge of abetment. |
| Kartar Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court of India | Yes | (1994) 3 SCC 569 | India | Cited as authority that an accused must have knowledge to be convicted of a charge of abetment. |
| Trade Facilities Pte Ltd and others v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 7 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the defence under proviso (i) to s 49 of the TMA. |
| PP v Tan Lay Heong and another | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 504 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the defence under proviso (i) to s 49 of the TMA and that elements (1) and (2) are distinct but inextricably connected and must be read conjunctively. |
| R v S Ebata | N/A | Yes | [1938] MLJ 46 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where no reasonable precautions could be taken, thus an accused can be said to have acted innocently. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 49(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 107(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Health Products Act (Cap 122D, 2008 Rev Ed) s 16(1)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Counterfeit contact lenses
- Trade mark infringement
- Abetment
- Health Products Act
- Strict liability
- Reasonable precautions
- Mens rea
15.2 Keywords
- Counterfeit
- Contact lenses
- Trade mark
- Abetment
- Health Products Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Trade Mark Law
- Health Products Regulation
17. Areas of Law
- Trade Mark Law
- Criminal Law
- Health Law