3 Corporate Services v Grabtaxi: Domain Name Dispute & Cybersquatting
In Suit No. 682 of 2018, 3 Corporate Services Pte Ltd sued Grabtaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd. in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract for Grabtaxi's failure to purchase the domain name 'grab.co.id' for US$250,000. 3 Corporate Services sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu, dismissed the claim, finding that 3 Corporate Services was engaged in cybersquatting and that the Offer Letter was unenforceable due to public policy considerations. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it had suffered any loss.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
3 Corporate Services sued Grabtaxi for specific performance over a domain name sale. The court dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff to be a cybersquatter.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Corporate Services Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Grabtaxi Holdings Pte. Ltd. | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- 3 Corporate Services sued Grabtaxi for failing to purchase the domain name 'grab.co.id'.
- The domain name 'grab.co.id' was registered by Top3 Media, a company related to 3 Corporate Services.
- Grabtaxi offered to purchase the domain name for US$250,000, subject to certain preconditions.
- 3 Corporate Services also offered to sell other domain names (grab.com.sg, grab.com.vn, grab.ph) to Grabtaxi.
- Grabtaxi decided not to proceed with the purchase after discovering that 3 Corporate Services was engaged in cybersquatting.
- 3 Corporate Services and related entities registered over 1,200 domain names, including names similar to other companies' brands.
- The domain name was transferred from Deddy to Ashwyn on the day he was negotiating terms with Mark.
5. Formal Citations
- 3 Corporate Services Pte Ltd v Grabtaxi Holdings Pte Ltd, Suit No 682 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Grabtaxi launched its ride-hailing mobile application in Malaysia. | |
| Grabtaxi entered the Philippines market. | |
| Grabtaxi entered the Singapore market. | |
| Grabtaxi entered the Vietnam market. | |
| Top3 Media registered the domain name “grab.co.id”. | |
| Grabtaxi filed applications in Indonesia for registration of GRAB-related trade mark. | |
| Grabtaxi entered the Indonesia market. | |
| Mark's friend approached Anthony Tan regarding the sale of the domain name. | |
| Grabtaxi sent a letter of offer to 3 Corporate Services to purchase the domain name. | |
| Ashwyn signed the acceptance portion of the Offer Letter on behalf of 3 Corporate Services. | |
| Mark informed Shawn that the SPA had been signed by Ashwyn and sent back to Shawn. | |
| Grabtaxi decided not to proceed with the purchase of the Domain Name. | |
| Shawn informed Mark of Grabtaxi's decision to terminate the Offer Letter. | |
| 3 Corporate Services filed Originating Summons No. 210 of 2018 against Grabtaxi. | |
| Court ordered that the OS be continued as if it were begun by Writ of Summons. | |
| The plaintiff’s appeal against the granting of the Stay Application was dismissed. | |
| The plaintiff filed its statement of claim. | |
| Hearing commenced. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was no valid and enforceable contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Cybersquatting
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was a cybersquatter.
- Category: Substantive
- Public Policy
- Outcome: The court held that enforcing the Offer Letter would be contrary to public policy due to the plaintiff's cybersquatting activities.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Specific Performance
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Transportation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited regarding contracts entered into to achieve an illegal purpose or object. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Cited regarding contracts entered into to achieve an illegal purpose or object. |
| British Telecommunications plc v One In A Million Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 WLR 903 | England | Cited as a leading case on cybersquatting and trademark infringement. |
| Marks & Spencer plc and Others v One In A Million Ltd and Others | English High Court | Yes | [1997] 42 IPR 21 | England | Cited as a leading case on cybersquatting and trademark infringement. |
| Global Projects Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc and others | English High Court | Yes | [2005] EWHC 2663 (Ch) | England | Cited for its description of the phenomenon of cybersquatting. |
| Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 QB 897 | England | Cited by the plaintiff, the court distinguished it due to the evolution of the internet. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Domain Name
- Cybersquatting
- Offer Letter
- Specific Performance
- Public Policy
- Bad Faith
- Domain Name Speculation
- GRAB
- Trademark
- Domain Name System
- UDRP
- SDRP
15.2 Keywords
- domain name
- cybersquatting
- grabtaxi
- contract
- singapore
- intellectual property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Cybersquatting | 85 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Domain Name Disputes | 65 |
| Illegality and public policy | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Specific performance | 40 |
| Damages | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Intellectual Property
- Domain Names
- Cybersquatting