TWG Tea Co Pte Ltd v Murjani Manoj Mohan: Domain Name Ownership Dispute & Defamation Counterclaim

In TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd v Murjani Manoj Mohan, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over the domain name www.twgtea.com. TWG Tea sued Manoj Mohan, its former director, claiming he held the domain name on trust for the company. Mohan counterclaimed, alleging ownership and unjust enrichment, and defamation against TWG Tea, Taha Bou Qdib, and Maranda Barnes Bou Qdib. The court found in favor of TWG Tea, declaring that Mohan held the domain name on trust and dismissing his counterclaims. The court also found that Taha and Maranda were founders of TWG Tea.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's Counterclaims Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Domain name dispute where TWG Tea claimed Manoj Mohan held the domain on trust. Mohan counterclaimed for defamation. Judgment for TWG Tea.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Murjani Manoj MohanDefendant, Plaintiff in counterclaimIndividualCounterclaims DismissedLost
TWG Tea Company Pte LtdPlaintiff, Defendant in counterclaimCorporationClaim GrantedWon
Taha Bou QdibDefendant in counterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedWon
Maranda Barnes Bou QdibDefendant in counterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Audrey LimJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Swee YenWongPartnership LLP
Lin ChunlongWongPartnership LLP
Jasmine LowWongPartnership LLP
Jeremy TanWongPartnership LLP
Tony YeoDrew & Napier LLC
Meryl KohDrew & Napier LLC
Vanessa HoDrew & Napier LLC
Ashley LohDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Manoj registered the domain name www.twgtea.com.
  2. TWG Tea claimed Manoj held the domain name on trust.
  3. Manoj counterclaimed for ownership and unjust enrichment.
  4. Manoj also counterclaimed for defamation.
  5. Taha and Maranda were employed by Wellness and later TWG Tea.
  6. Taha, Maranda, and Manoj discussed branding the tea business as TWG Tea.
  7. Manoj signed a declaration stating the domain name would remain TWG Tea's property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. TWG Tea Co Pte Ltd v Murjani Manoj Mohan, Suit No 799 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 117
  2. The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and another suit, , [2016] 3 SLR 729
  3. Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd, , [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769
  4. Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng, , [2016] 2 SLR 464
  5. Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others, , [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
  6. Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal, , [2017] 2 SLR 760
  7. Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another, , [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
  8. Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appeal, , [2009] 3 SLR(R) 452
  9. Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301, , [2018] 2 SLR 866
  10. Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appeal, , [2013] 4 SLR 629
  11. The Dolphina, , [2012] 1 SLR 992
  12. Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd), , [2014] 3 SLR 329
  13. Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appeal, , [2012] 1 SLR 506
  14. Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia, , [2014] 1 SLR 639
  15. EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another, , [2014] 1 SLR 860
  16. Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others and other appeals, , [2013] 1 SLR 374

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wellness was incorporated.
Wellness had a tea division.
Manoj discussed with Taha about heading the expansion of Wellness’ tea business in the Middle East.
Manoj offered Taha and Maranda employment with Wellness.
Taha and Maranda moved to Singapore.
Taha and Maranda joined Wellness.
Taha commenced employment at Wellness.
Maranda commenced employment as a director of Wellness’ Tea Division.
Taha conceptualised and proposed to Maranda and Manoj to brand and name the luxury tea business as “TWG Tea”.
Manoj registered the domain name www.twgtea.com.
Sunbreeze Group Pte Ltd was renamed TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd.
Rith was first employed by Wellness.
Taha, Maranda and Rith’s employment were transferred to TWG Tea.
Manoj emailed Taha and Maranda, with the subject “tahatea.com” and stated that he had “registered for us as it was still open”.
TWG Tea’s shares were given to Taha, Mr Rithyrith Aum-Stievenard and Mr Philippe Gerard Langlois.
A further allotment of shares was given to Wellness, Taha, Maranda, Rith, and Philippe.
Maranda was a director of TWG Tea.
Manoj was its Chairman and CEO.
Maranda was a director of TWG Tea.
Maranda is currently Director of Corporate Communications and Business Development of TWG Tea.
Manoj copied Maranda on an email stating that he had gone online and “renewed our domain www.twgtea.com for 3 years…”.
Manoj signed a document declaring that the Domain Name would always remain the property of TWG Tea.
Manoj had also used TWG Tea’s corporate credit card to renew the Domain Name and other domain names.
Manoj stepped down as CEO.
Manoj stepped down as director and Chairman.
OSIM International Ltd had acquired 34.99% of TWG Tea.
Paris Investment Pte Ltd was purchased by OSIM.
Suit 187 of 2014 commenced.
Suit 545 of 2014 commenced.
TWG Tea’s name was changed from “The Wellness Group” Tea to “The Wellbeing Group” Tea.
TWG Tea’s name was changed from “The Wellness Group” Tea to “The Wellbeing Group” Tea.
The Website had this material since June 2015 and the Website Statement was the first time TWG Tea had mentioned on its website who its founders were.
TWG Tea’s solicitors demanded that Manoj transfer the Domain Name to TWG Tea.
TWG Tea commenced this suit.
Manoj attempted to make payments for renewal of the Domain Name from 3 August 2017 onwards but these were rejected by TWG Tea.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that Manoj held the Domain Name on trust for TWG Tea.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Proprietary Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that Manoj is estopped from denying that the Domain Name belonged to TWG Tea.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Limitation
    • Outcome: The court found that Manoj could not avail of the defences of limitation.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Laches
    • Outcome: The court found that Manoj could not avail of the defences of laches.
    • Category: Procedural
  5. Malicious Falsehood
    • Outcome: The court dismissed Manoj’s counterclaim for malicious falsehood.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court dismissed Manoj’s counterclaim for conspiracy.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Trust
  2. Transfer of Domain Name
  3. Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Malicious Falsehood
  • Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Trust Law
  • Defamation Law

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty LtdN/AYes[2015] 1 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the requirements for the creation of an express trust, including certainty of intention, subject matter, and object.
Goi Wang Firn (Ni Wanfen) and others v Chee Kow Ngee Sing (Pte) LtdN/AYes[2015] 1 SLR 1049SingaporeCited to support the principle that a trust can be declared for a beneficiary which is a company.
Blackburn v StablesN/AYes(1814) 35 ER 358N/ACited by analogy to support the principle that a trust can be created for an unborn entity, such as for an infant in the mother’s womb.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherN/AYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the requirements to successfully found an estoppel, including representation, reliance, and detriment.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the requirements to successfully found an estoppel, including representation, reliance, and detriment.
Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) LtdN/AYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited for the doctrine of laches.
Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak HengN/AYes[2016] 2 SLR 464SingaporeCited for the doctrine of laches.
Schellenberg v British Broadcasting CorporationN/ANo[2000] EMLR 296N/ACited for the determination of whether there has been an abuse of process.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for the determination of whether there has been an abuse of process.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appealN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 760SingaporeCited for the determination of whether there has been an abuse of process.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and anotherN/AYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004SingaporeCited for the effect of the no case to answer submission on Manoj’s counterclaim.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appealN/AYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452SingaporeCited for the effect of the no case to answer submission on Manoj’s counterclaim.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301N/AYes[2018] 2 SLR 866SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of malicious falsehood.
Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others and another appealN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 629SingaporeCited for the presumption of publication merely because the statements were placed online.
The DolphinaN/AYes[2012] 1 SLR 992SingaporeCited for the attribution of knowledge to TWG Tea.
Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd)N/AYes[2014] 3 SLR 329SingaporeCited for the attribution of knowledge to TWG Tea.
Webster v British Gas Services LtdN/AYes[2003] EWHC 1188N/ACited for the vicarious liability of a corporation for the malicious falsehood of an employee.
Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores LtdN/AYes[2011] 2 WLR 91N/ACited for the principle that a claimant can avail of more than one of the natural and ordinary meanings.
Chan Cheng Wah Bernard and others v Koh Sin Chong Freddie and another appealN/AYes[2012] 1 SLR 506SingaporeCited for the general principles for what is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the context of defamation.
Ahmed v John Fairfax Publications Pty LtdNSW Supreme CourtYes[2006] NSWSCAustraliaCited for the publications in the Sydney Morning Herald would have been extensive given “the very nature of the defendant’s newspaper and its business”.
The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and another suitN/AYes[2016] 3 SLR 729SingaporeCited for the background of Suit 187 of 2014.
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaN/AYes[2014] 1 SLR 639SingaporeCited for the essential element of the tort of malicious falsehood to show the element of special damage.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the elements of a claim for conspiracy by unlawful means.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others and other appealsN/AYes[2013] 1 SLR 374SingaporeCited for the elements of a claim for conspiracy by lawful means.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) ss 6(7) and 22(2)Singapore
Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) s 6(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Domain Name
  • Express Trust
  • Constructive Trust
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • Malicious Falsehood
  • Founders
  • Co-founders

15.2 Keywords

  • TWG Tea
  • Domain Name
  • Trust
  • Defamation
  • Singapore
  • Founder
  • Tea

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law90
Civil Procedure70
Torts60
Malicious Falsehood50
Domain Name Disputes40
Proprietary Estoppel30
Contract Law30
Conspiracy30
Breach of Contract30
Company Law20
Corporate Law20
Unjust Enrichment20
Laches20

16. Subjects

  • Trust Law
  • Domain Name Dispute
  • Defamation
  • Intellectual Property