Allergan v Ferlandz Nutra: Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off & Malicious Falsehood in Eyelash Growth Products

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Allergan, Inc and Allergan Singapore Pte Ltd (the Plaintiffs) sued Ferlandz Nutra Pte Ltd (the Defendant) for trade mark infringement, passing off, and malicious falsehood related to eyelash growth products. The Defendant counterclaimed for groundless threats of infringement. The court found in favor of the Plaintiffs on the trade mark infringement and passing off claims, dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim and the malicious falsehood claim. The court determined that the Defendant's product infringed on the Plaintiff's registered trade mark and that the Defendant had engaged in passing off.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs on trade mark infringement and passing off claims; Defendant's counterclaim and malicious falsehood claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on trade mark infringement, passing off, and malicious falsehood claims involving eyelash growth products.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ALLERGAN, INCPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff on trade mark infringement and passing off claimsPartial
ALLERGAN SINGAPORE PTE LTDPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff on trade mark infringement and passing off claimsPartial
FERLANDZ NUTRA PTE LTDDefendantCorporationCounterclaim Dismissed; Malicious Falsehood Claim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
George WeiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Oh Pin-PingBird & Bird ATMD LLP
Alban KangBird & Bird ATMD LLP
Roxanne LowVia Law Corporation
Wang YingyuVia Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The First Plaintiff is an American company that develops and commercializes healthcare products.
  2. The Second Plaintiff is the wholly-owned Singapore subsidiary of the First Plaintiff and distributes the First Plaintiff’s products in Singapore.
  3. The Plaintiffs' product, Latisse, is an eyelash growth product sold in Singapore since January 2011.
  4. The Defendant is a Singapore company that imports and distributes cosmeticeutical and neutraceutical products.
  5. The Defendant brought an eyelash growth-enhancement product, Lassez, into Singapore in July 2012.
  6. The Plaintiffs allege trade mark infringement in respect of the Defendant’s use of the Plain Lassez Sign and the Lassez Device Sign.
  7. The Defendant used the LATISSE mark on promotional brochures for the Lassez Product.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Allergan, Inc and another v Ferlandz Nutra Pte Ltd, Suit No 34 of 2013, [2016] SGHC 131

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs began selling the Latisse Product in Singapore.
Defendant distributed FDA letter to Temasek Medical Centre.
Defendant brought the Lassez Product into Singapore.
Suit filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trade Mark Infringement
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant infringed the First Plaintiff's trade mark.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similarity of Marks
      • Similarity of Goods
      • Likelihood of Confusion
      • Use in the Course of Trade
      • Fair Use in Comparative Advertising
  2. Passing Off
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant was liable for passing off.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Goodwill
      • Misrepresentation
      • Likelihood of Confusion
      • Damage
  3. Malicious Falsehood
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant was not liable for malicious falsehood.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False Statement
      • Malice
      • Pecuniary Damage
  4. Groundless Threat of Infringement Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim for groundless threat of infringement proceedings.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Delivery Up
  3. Erasure
  4. Inquiry into Damages
  5. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Malicious Falsehood

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Cosmetics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 690SingaporeCited for the requirements to succeed in a claim under Section 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 941SingaporeCited for the proper approach to assessing similarity between an allegedly infringing sign and a registered mark.
Rovio Entertainment Ltd v Kimanis Food Industries Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 216SingaporeCited to support the principle that the similarity of marks inquiry is more a matter of feel than science.
Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 911SingaporeCited to emphasize that the comparison between marks is ultimately a matter of impression.
Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kasisha (Uni-Char Corp)UnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1082SingaporeCited for the proposition that the first syllable of a mark is most important.
Sarika Connoisseur Café Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpACourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 531SingaporeCited regarding how Singaporean consumers will pronounce trade marks and signs.
British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons LtdUnknownYes[1996] RPC 281England and WalesCited for factors to determine the similarity of goods.
Clinique Laboratories, LLC v Clinique Suisse Pte Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2010] 4 SLR 510SingaporeCited for the convergence between the cosmetic care and medical industries.
Alcon v OHIMUnknownYes[2007] ETMR 68European UnionCited to support the inclusion of end-users in the average consumer analysis.
Mundipharma AG v Ohim (Case T-256/04)UnknownYes[2007] ECR II-00449European UnionCited to support the inclusion of end-users in the average consumer analysis.
Alcon v OHIM (Case T-237/01)UnknownNo[2003] ECR II-411European UnionCited and contrasted with Alcon v OHIM [2007] ETMR 68 regarding the relevant public.
Re Lovens Kemiske Fabrik Ved A Konsted’s Application for Registration of Trade Mark ‘Leocillin’UnknownYes[1953] MLJ 215MalaysiaCited regarding the likelihood of confusion from the viewpoints of chemist assistants, sisters and nurses.
Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc and another suitUnknownNo[2006] 1 SLR(R) 712SingaporeCited regarding the identification of the average consumer.
City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton MalletierUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 382SingaporeCited for the requirement that infringing use must be of a trade mark use.
British Airways plc v Ryanair LtdUnknownYes[2001] ETMR 24England and WalesCited regarding the application of Section 10(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK) to comparative advertising.
Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services LtdHigh CourtNo[1997] FSR 34England and WalesCited regarding the interpretation of Section 10(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK).
Barclays Bank Plc v RBS AdvantaUnknownYes[1996] RPC 307England and WalesCited regarding the interpretation of Section 10(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK).
New Kids on the Block v News America Publishing IncUnited States Court of AppealYes971 F 2d 302 (9th Cir, 1992)United StatesCited regarding the test for nominative fair use.
Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v Lendingtree, IncUnited States Court of AppealYes425 F 3d 211 (3rd Cir, 2005)United StatesCited regarding the test for nominative fair use.
Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and AnotherCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR 216SingaporeCited for the essential features of goodwill.
CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte LtdUnknownYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 975SingaporeCited for the relevant date to assess the presence of goodwill.
Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (trading as L S Electrical Trading)Court of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 33SingaporeCited for clarifications on the concept of goodwill.
The Singapore Professional Golfers’ Association v Chen Eng Waye and othersUnknownYes[2013] 2 SLR 495SingaporeCited regarding the establishment of a likelihood of confusion.
Tong Guan Food Products Pte Ltd v Hoe Huat Hng Foodstuff Pte LtdUnknownYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 903SingaporeCited regarding the inference of a likelihood of blurring.
WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Meridian Life International Pte Ltd and othersUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 727SingaporeCited for the elements of a claim in malicious falsehood.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealUnknownYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited regarding the proof of malice.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaUnknownYes[2014] 1 SLR 639SingaporeCited regarding the meaning of 'calculated to' in Section 6(1)(a) of the Defamation Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Latisse
  • Lassez
  • Eyelash Growth Product
  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off
  • Malicious Falsehood
  • Goodwill
  • Likelihood of Confusion
  • Comparative Advertising
  • Pharmaceutical Preparations
  • Cosmetic Products

15.2 Keywords

  • trade mark
  • infringement
  • passing off
  • malicious falsehood
  • eyelash growth
  • Latisse
  • Lassez

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademarks95
Malicious Falsehood80
Groundless threat75
Passing Off70
Infringement65
Torts60
Misrepresentation50
Contract Law30
Civil Litigation20
Commercial Law10

16. Subjects

  • Trade Mark Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Commercial Law
  • Torts