Goik Soon Guan v PP: Trade Mark & Copyright Infringement Sentence Appeal
Goik Soon Guan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for trade mark and copyright infringement. He had pleaded guilty to four charges under the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act for selling infringing bedding products. The High Court, with Chao Hick Tin JA presiding, allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence for one charge and clarifying the sentencing framework for such offenses. The court emphasized that while deterrence is a key consideration, the sentence must be proportionate to the offense and the offender's level of involvement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Goik Soon Guan appealed his sentence for trade mark and copyright infringement. The High Court reduced his sentence, clarifying sentencing benchmarks.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Partially Dismissed | Partial | Goh Yi Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sanjna Rai of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Goik Soon Guan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Goh Yi Ling | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sanjna Rai | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zaminder Singh Gill | Hillborne Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The Appellant sold bedding products under the business name of “Jacky G Trading”.
- The Appellant rented two shops at Toa Payoh Lorong 7, one for selling and one for storage.
- The Appellant also operated at night markets and outside shops in heartland areas.
- The Appellant employed one driver and four sales assistants.
- The Appellant supplied Infringing Articles to his uncle, Lau Teck Chee.
- Officers from the Intellectual Property Rights Branch carried out raids and seized 8,957 Infringing Articles.
- The Appellant made compensation of $100,000 to various trade mark/copyright owners.
5. Formal Citations
- Goik Soon Guan v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 209 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 31
- Public Prosecutor v Goik Soon Guan, , [2013] SGDC 301
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant rented a shop at Block 18 Toa Payoh Lorong 7 #01-256. | |
| Appellant rented a second shop at Block 18 Toa Payoh Lorong 7 #01-260. | |
| Appellant supplied Infringing Articles to Lau Teck Chee. | |
| Officers from the Intellectual Property Rights Branch carried out raids. | |
| Statement of Facts dated. | |
| Appellant's imprisonment commenced. | |
| High Court allowed the appeal in part. | |
| Appellant’s term of imprisonment to commence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Outcome: The appellant was convicted of trade mark infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The appellant was convicted of copyright infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The High Court clarified the sentencing framework for trade mark and copyright infringement offences, emphasizing the importance of deterrence and proportionality.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Deterrence
- Proportionality
- Mitigating Factors
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 1 SLR(R) 587
- [2012] 3 SLR 776
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Goik Soon Guan | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 301 | Singapore | The decision of the district judge which was appealed against. |
| Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing tariff for offences involving 1,000 or more infringing articles, but the High Court in this case clarifies that the previous court did not explicitly endorse the benchmark sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and above. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cheong Hock Lai and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 203 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a deterrent sentence may take the form of a fine. |
| Muhammad Saiful bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1028 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Saiful Rizam bin Assim and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 495 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality in sentencing. |
| Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the punishment imposed should fit the crime and the criminal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Ah Tiong | District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 264 | Singapore | The trial judge's decision in Ong Ah Tiong, which was reviewed by the High Court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Yan Tong | Magistrate's Court | Yes | [2003] SGMC 30 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where less than ten months’ imprisonment was imposed for s 49(c) TMA offences where more than 1,000 infringing articles were involved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hong Wing Kam | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 198 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where less than ten months’ imprisonment was imposed for s 49(c) TMA offences where more than 1,000 infringing articles were involved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Boon Hian | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 271 | Singapore | Illustrative of high involvement on the offender’s part. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Chor Guan | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 336 | Singapore | Illustrative of moderate involvement on the offender’s part. |
| Public Prosecutor v Md Hapiz bin Tahir | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 40 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is the central consideration for copyright and trade mark infringement offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Eng Kian | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is the central consideration for copyright and trade mark infringement offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwan Eddy Shu Kin | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 163 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is the central consideration for copyright and trade mark infringement offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that appellate intervention was warranted. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited for the approach of developing a sentencing framework for a particular offence. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the approach of developing a sentencing framework for a particular offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lin Dunai | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 328 | Singapore | Taking this approach, one factor which might be useful to start with in deciding whether a fine or imprisonment (or both) should be imposed is whether the offender had some sort of permanence in dealing with the infringing articles. |
| Public Prosecutor v Liu Chia-Shih and Another | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 161 | Singapore | Such compensation should be recognised as a mitigating factor. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | It is trite law that restitution of ill-gotten gains or, alternatively, the offering or actual payment of compensation to a victim is a relevant mitigating factor as it reflects genuine remorse by the offender. |
| Lim Seng Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 273 | Singapore | It is trite law that restitution of ill-gotten gains or, alternatively, the offering or actual payment of compensation to a victim is a relevant mitigating factor as it reflects genuine remorse by the offender. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 49(c) | Singapore |
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 136(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Infringing articles
- Trade mark
- Copyright
- Counterfeit
- Sentencing benchmark
- Deterrence
- Proportionality
15.2 Keywords
- trade mark infringement
- copyright infringement
- sentencing
- appeal
- intellectual property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Copyrights | 90 |
| Trademarks | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing