East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute
In a case before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, the claimant, alleged that Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, the defendant, infringed its trademarks and engaged in passing off by using terms like 'east coast podiatry' in Google Ads. The court, presided over by Justice Dedar Singh Gill, ruled against the claimant, finding no trademark infringement or passing off. The court considered the use of the defendant's website in dispelling any potential confusion.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Claims for trade mark infringement and for passing off fail.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that Family Podiatry Centre's use of 'east coast podiatry' in Google Ads did not infringe East Coast Podiatry Centre's trademarks or constitute passing off.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The claimant, East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, owns trademarks containing the words 'East Coast Podiatry'.
- The defendant, Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, used Google Ads with terms like 'east coast podiatry'.
- The claimant alleged trademark infringement and passing off due to the defendant's Google Ads.
- The defendant argued its use was descriptive and there was no likelihood of confusion.
- The defendant's website displayed its own branding, 'Family Podiatry Centre', distinct from the claimant's.
- The court found that the defendant's website dispelled any potential confusion arising from the Google Ads.
5. Formal Citations
- East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 33 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 102
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd began business operations. | |
| Trade mark no. 40201807140R registered. | |
| Trade mark no. 40201808612Y registered. | |
| Trade mark no. 40201818910V registered. | |
| Mr. Reyneker considered the East Coast region as a potential location. | |
| Mr. Reyneker informed Ms. Wu that he could consider the East Coast region as another potential location. | |
| Mr. Reyneker signed the Letter of Intent to rent the unit at 170 Joo Chiat Road. | |
| Mr Tay discovered four of the defendant’s advertisements on Google. | |
| The claimant’s solicitors delivered a letter to the defendant demanding for the immediate removal of the term “East Coast Podiatry” from the First Incident Advertisements. | |
| Mr. Reyneker signed the tenancy agreement for the unit. | |
| The claimant filed a claim against the defendant for infringement of the claimant’s ECPC Marks under s 27 of the Trade Marks Act 1998 and for passing off. | |
| Google’s Legal Support Team informed the claimant that it had restricted the First Incident Advertisements. | |
| Google’s Legal Support Team informed the claimant that it had restricted the First Incident Advertisements. | |
| The defendant filed its Defence and Counterclaim. | |
| The claimant discovered two more of the defendant’s Google advertisements. | |
| The Google Legal Support Team responded and informed the claimant that the advertisements “should no longer display”. | |
| The claimant discovered three of the defendant’s Google advertisements. | |
| The Google Legal Support Team wrote to inform the claimant that the advertisements “should no longer display”. | |
| The claimant filed a form electing for Part 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 to apply, and a form abandoning any claim for monetary relief in excess of $500,000. | |
| The defendant withdrew its counterclaim. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant's use of 'east coast podiatry' in Google Ads did not constitute trade mark infringement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 156
- City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton Malletier [2010] 1 SLR 382
- Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc (No 2) [2013] 2 All ER 663
- Cosmetics Warriors Ltd and another v amazon.co.uk Ltd and another [2014] IP & T 497
- Google France SARL and another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA; Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and another; Google France SARL v Centre National de Recherche en Relations Humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others [2011] All ER (EC) 411
- Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc [2015] IP & T 109
- Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others v Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others AD/CA 85/2023
- Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd and another and another appeal [2013] 2 SLR 941
- Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 308
- Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA [2013] 1 SLR 531
- Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc and another suit [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712
- Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others [2016] 5 SLR 1183
- Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appeal [2014] 1 SLR 911
- Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV Case C-558/08 (2010) ECR I-6963
- Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another
- 32Red plc (a Gibraltar Company) v WHG (International) Ltd (a Gibraltar Company) [2011] RPC 721
- 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd [2012] RPC 19
- Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc and another [2013] IP & T 931
- Passing Off
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant's use of 'east coast podiatry' in Google Ads did not constitute passing off.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and another [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216
- Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (trading as L S Electrical Trading) [2016] 4 SLR 86
- CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 1 SLR(R) 975
- The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 517
- Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd (trading as ONE.99 SHOP) [2000] 1 SLR(R) 687
- Allergan, Inc and another v Ferlandz Nutra Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 919
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunctive Relief
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Passing Off
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Legal Services
- Advertising
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others v Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 156 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of a trade mark infringement claim and the tort of passing off. |
| City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton Malletier | N/A | Yes | City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton Malletier [2010] 1 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'identical' in trade mark law and the relevance of the Directive in interpreting s 27 of the TMA. |
| Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc (No 2) [2013] 2 All ER 663 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that judges can determine consumer perception of search engine results without expert evidence. |
| Cosmetics Warriors Ltd and another v amazon.co.uk Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | Cosmetics Warriors Ltd and another v amazon.co.uk Ltd and another [2014] IP & T 497 | N/A | Cited for the principle that judges can determine consumer perception of search engine results without expert evidence. |
| Google France SARL and another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA; Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and another; Google France SARL v Centre National de Recherche en Relations Humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others | N/A | Yes | Google France SARL and another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA; Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and another; Google France SARL v Centre National de Recherche en Relations Humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others [2011] All ER (EC) 411 | N/A | Cited for the description of how Google's search engine and Google Ads operate. |
| Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc | N/A | Yes | Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc [2015] IP & T 109 | N/A | Cited for the description of how Google's search engine and Google Ads operate. |
| Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others v Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | Dr Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others v Dr Who Waterworks Pte Ltd and others AD/CA 85/2023 | Singapore | Cited as affirming the findings on infringement and the tort of passing off. |
| Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd and another and another appeal [2013] 2 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited for the likelihood of confusion inquiry in trademark cases. |
| Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd | N/A | Yes | Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether a substantial portion of the relevant public will be confused. |
| Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA | N/A | Yes | Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA [2013] 1 SLR 531 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether a substantial portion of the relevant public will be confused. |
| Ng-Loy Wee Loon SC, Law of Intellectual Property of Singapore | N/A | Yes | Ng-Loy Wee Loon SC, Law of Intellectual Property of Singapore (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2021) | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the relevant public in trademark cases. |
| Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc and another suit | N/A | Yes | Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc and another suit [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the relevant public in trademark cases. |
| Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others [2016] 5 SLR 1183 | Singapore | Cited for the viewpoint of the average consumer in trademark cases. |
| Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another and another appeal [2014] 1 SLR 911 | Singapore | Cited for the rejection of the initial interest confusion doctrine in Singapore. |
| Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV | N/A | Yes | Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV Case C-558/08 (2010) ECR I-6963 | N/A | Cited for the assessment of likelihood of confusion in light of how the advertisement is presented as a whole. |
| Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another | High Court | Yes | Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc and another | Singapore | Cited for the factors considered in assessing the likelihood of confusion. |
| 32Red plc (a Gibraltar Company) v WHG (International) Ltd (a Gibraltar Company) | English High Court | Yes | 32Red plc (a Gibraltar Company) v WHG (International) Ltd (a Gibraltar Company) [2011] RPC 721 | England and Wales | Cited for the reaction of the average consumer to sponsored links. |
| 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd [2012] RPC 19 | England and Wales | Cited for upholding the findings of the trial judge on the issue of misleading marks. |
| Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc and another | N/A | Yes | Interflora Inc and another v Marks and Spencer plc and another [2013] IP & T 931 | N/A | Cited for the consideration of the parties’ websites in determining a likelihood of confusion. |
| Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and another [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216 | Singapore | Cited for the three core elements of a passing off claim. |
| Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (trading as L S Electrical Trading) | N/A | Yes | Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (trading as L S Electrical Trading) [2016] 4 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited for the three core elements of a passing off claim. |
| CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 1 SLR(R) 975 | Singapore | Cited for the protection of the goodwill of the plaintiff’s business as a whole in a passing off claim. |
| The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | The Audience Motivation Company Asia Pte Ltd v AMC Live Group China (S) Pte Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited for the essential characteristics of goodwill. |
| Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd (trading as ONE.99 SHOP) | N/A | Yes | Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd (trading as ONE.99 SHOP) [2000] 1 SLR(R) 687 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prima facie descriptive mark will only be protected if it has acquired a secondary meaning. |
| Allergan, Inc and another v Ferlandz Nutra Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | Allergan, Inc and another v Ferlandz Nutra Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 919 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of extraneous factors in determining misrepresentation in a passing off claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act 1998 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Passing Off
- Google Ads
- Likelihood of Confusion
- Descriptive Use
- Trade Mark
- Sponsored Links
- URL
- Website
- Goodwill
15.2 Keywords
- trade mark infringement
- passing off
- google ads
- podiatry
- singapore
- intellectual property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trademarks | 95 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 90 |
| Passing Off | 90 |
| Civil Litigation | 30 |
| Civil Practice | 20 |
| Evidence Law | 20 |
| Costs | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Marks
- Advertising Law