All India Supermart v Indian Supermarket: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off

All India Supermart Pte Ltd (AISPL) sued Indian Supermarket Pte Ltd (ISPL) and Duraikkannu Baskaran in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, alleging trade mark infringement and passing off. AISPL also sought to invalidate ISPL's registered trade mark. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, dismissed AISPL's claims, finding no trade mark infringement or passing off. The court also dismissed the originating summons seeking invalidation of ISPL's trade mark.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Suit and Originating Summons dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

All India Supermart sued Indian Supermarket for trade mark infringement and passing off, but the claims were dismissed. The application to invalidate Indian Supermarket's trade mark was also dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
All India Supermart Pte LtdPlaintiff, ApplicantCorporationClaims DismissedLost
Indian Supermarket Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Duraikkannu BaskaranDefendant, RespondentIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
G RadakrishnanGrays LLC
Suriya Prakash UthayasurianPhoenix Law Corporation
Kanthosamy RajendranRLC Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. AISPL and ISPL operate Indian supermarkets in Little India.
  2. AISPL has operated under the trade mark “ALL INDIA SUPERMART” since November 2015.
  3. ISPL opened an Indian supermarket under the name “INDIAN SUPERMARKET” in July 2020.
  4. AISPL claimed ISPL's use of “INDIAN SUPERMARKET” infringed its registered trade mark.
  5. AISPL also claimed ISPL was liable for passing off.
  6. AISPL sought to invalidate ISPL’s registered trade mark.
  7. ISPL’s Mark includes the words “INDIAN SUPERMARKET” and a pictorial device.

5. Formal Citations

  1. All India Supermart Pte Ltd v Indian Supermarket Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 693 of 2020 and Originating Summons No 477 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 293

6. Timeline

DateEvent
AISPL incorporated in Singapore
AISPL began operating an Indian supermarket under the trade mark and trade name “ALL INDIA SUPERMART”
SSR Tradings Pte Ltd supplied Indian snack food to AISPL
ISPL was incorporated by Mr Baskaran
AISPL became the registered proprietor of its trade mark
Supply of SSR’s products to AISPL ceased
ISPL became the registered proprietor of its trade mark
ISPL and Mr Baskaran opened an Indian supermarket under the name “INDIAN SUPERMARKET”
AISPL’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to ISPL requesting it to cease using the mark and name “INDIAN SUPERMARKET”
AISPL commenced the Suit against ISPL and Mr Baskaran
AISPL’s solicitors enclosed a copy of the registration certificate for AISPL’s Mark and reiterated its request for ISPL to cease using the mark and name “INDIAN SUPERMARKET”
ISPL’s solicitors responded with a refusal to cease using the mark and name “INDIAN SUPERMARKET”
Trial was bifurcated
AISPL filed the OS seeking the invalidation of ISPL’s Mark
AISPL applied to register two further trade marks
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trade Mark Infringement
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no trade mark infringement because the marks were more dissimilar than similar and there was no likelihood of confusion.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similarity of marks
      • Similarity of services
      • Likelihood of confusion
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 2 SLR(R) 690
      • [2014] 1 SLR 911
  2. Passing Off
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no passing off because the plaintiff failed to prove misrepresentation or confusion.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Goodwill
      • Misrepresentation
      • Damage
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216
      • [2021] 1 SLR 231
  3. Invalidity of Trade Mark
    • Outcome: The court held that there were no grounds to invalidate the defendant's trade mark.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Bad faith
      • Non-distinctiveness
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 5 SLR 424

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages
  3. Declaration of Invalidity

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Passing Off

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Trade Mark Infringement
  • Trade Mark Registration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail
  • Supermarkets

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop In Department Store Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 690SingaporeEndorsed the step-by-step approach to the analysis of infringement claims.
Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 911SingaporeEndorsed the step-by-step approach to the analysis of infringement claims and discussed the assessment of mark similarity.
Sarika Connoisseur Café Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpAHigh CourtNo[2013] 1 SLR 531SingaporeDiscussed the three aspects of similarity: visual, aural and conceptual.
Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2013] 2 SLR 941SingaporeDiscussed the general impression that will likely be left by the essential or dominant features of the marks on the average consumer.
Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Uni-Charm Corp)High CourtNo[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1082SingaporeCited regarding the emphasis of the first syllable in pronunciation.
Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd v Unico Trading Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2000] 2 SLR(R) 214SingaporeCited regarding the distinctiveness of a mark.
Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and anotherHigh CourtNo[2009] 3 SLR(R) 216SingaporeCited for the elements of a passing off claim: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
Tuitiongenius Pte Ltd v Toh Yew Keat and anotherHigh CourtNo[2021] 1 SLR 231SingaporeCited for the elements of a passing off claim: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
The Singapore Professional Golfers’ Association v Chen Eng Waye and othersCourt of AppealNo[2013] 2 SLR 495SingaporeDiscussed the distinctiveness of a mark and the possibility of a collection of generic or descriptive words becoming distinctive.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and othersCourt of AppealNo[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited regarding the liability of a director for the actions of a company.
Tomy Inc v Dentsply Sirona IncHigh CourtNo[2020] 5 SLR 424SingaporeSet out the general principles relating to bad faith under s 7(6) of the TMA.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 23 of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 8(4)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 8(4)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 7(6) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 7(1)(a) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore
s 7(1)(b) of the Trade Marks ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trade mark infringement
  • Passing off
  • Trade mark invalidity
  • Likelihood of confusion
  • Distinctiveness
  • Goodwill
  • Misrepresentation
  • Customer 23 Device

15.2 Keywords

  • Trade mark
  • Infringement
  • Passing off
  • Invalidity
  • Supermarket
  • Indian

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademarks95
Passing Off90
Declaration of Invalidity80
Unfair Competition70
Commercial Law30
Civil Procedure15

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Trade Marks
  • Trade Names
  • Passing Off