Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald's Corp

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChan Sek Keong CJ
Judgment Date28 March 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] SGCA 18
Citation[2007] SGCA 18
Defendant CounselDedar Singh Gill and Yvonne Tang (Drew & Napier LLC)
Published date02 April 2007
Date28 March 2007
Plaintiff CounselStanley Lai Tze Chang and Vignesh Vaerhn (Allen & Gledhill)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 73 of 2006
Subject MatterTrade Marks and Trade Names,Registered owner of "McCAFE" mark opposing application to register "MacCoffee" mark,Whether "MacCoffee" mark similar to "McCAFE" mark,Whether rights conferred by registration of "McCAFE" mark statutorily restricted and rendered inoperative under opposition, invalidation and infringement provisions of Trade Marks Act by reason of prior unregistered right to proprietorship of "MacCoffee" mark,Registration,Whether goods specified for "MacCoffee" mark similar to that for which "McCAFE" mark registered such that likelihood of confusion existing on the part of public,Sections 4(2), 8(7)(a), 23(3)(b), 28(2) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)

28 March 2007

Judgment reserved.

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This is an appeal by Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (“the appellant”) against the decision of Tay Yong Kwang J (“the trial judge”) dismissing its appeal against the decision of the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (“PAR”) who allowed the opposition of McDonald’s Corporation (“the respondent”) to the registration of the trade mark “MacCoffee” as a word mark in Class 30 for instant coffee mix by the appellant (see Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald’s Corporation [2005] SGIPOS 21).

2 Originally, the appellant’s application was to register the trade mark “MacCoffee” in Class 30 for, among other things, coffee, tea, cocoa, coffee-based beverages, artificial coffee, and cappuccino. The word mark was accepted for registration and advertised. The respondent filed an opposition to the application based on its prior registration of the trade mark “McCAFÉ”, also a word mark, in Class 30 for, among other things, coffee, and coffee substitutes. It was not disputed that the respondent had not, since its registration, used the trade mark “McCAFÉ” in relation to the Class 30 goods listed in its specification. At the opposition proceedings before the PAR, the appellant indicated that it was prepared to restrict the class of goods to “instant coffee mix”. The PAR upheld the opposition.

3 The trial judge affirmed the findings of the PAR that, (a) there were sufficient visual, aural and conceptual similarities between the marks; (b) the goods of the parties were similar if not identical; and (c) there was a corresponding likelihood of confusion on the part of the public (see [2006] 4 SLR 629).

Issues on appeal

4 In this appeal, the issues to be determined are:

(a) whether the “MacCoffee” mark was similar to the “McCAFÉ” mark;

(b) whether the goods specified for the “MacCoffee” mark were similar to that for which the “McCAFÉ” mark was registered such that a likelihood of confusion would exist on the part of the public; and

(c) whether the rights conferred by the registration of the “McCAFÉ” mark were statutorily restricted and rendered inoperative under the opposition provision (s 8(7)(a)), the invalidation provision (s 23(3)(b)) and the infringement provisions (ss 4(2) and 28(2)) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) (s 8(7)(a) was formerly s 8(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1999 Rev Ed)) by reason of the appellant’s prior unregistered right to proprietorship of the “MacCoffee” mark for instant coffee mix.

Our decision

5 On issues (a) and (b), having regard to the general principles applicable to appeals against findings of fact in trade mark applications, we see no reason why we should disturb the dual findings of fact by the PAR and the trial judge of similarity and likelihood of confusion between the two word marks “MacCoffee” and “McCAFÉ”. In Reef Trade Mark [2003] RPC 5, Robert Walker LJ considered the function of an appellate tribunal in relation to appeals from the UK Trade Mark Registry, and concluded (at [28]) that “an appellate court should … show a real reluctance, but not the very highest degree of reluctance, to interfere in the absence of a distinct and material error of principle”. In SC Prodal 94 SRL v Spirits International NV [2003] EWHC 2756 (Ch), Laddie J expressed the same sentiments (at [19]) as follows:

It is not the duty of this court to overturn a decision of the Trade Mark Registry simply because it comes to the conclusion that it might have decided the case differently had it, that is to say the High Court, been the court of first instance. It has to be demonstrated that the decision at first instance was wrong in a material way; that is to say there must be some significant departure from a proper assessment of the law or the facts.

6 This prudent approach has been unequivocally endorsed in the recent case of Sunrider Corporation v Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 37 (Ch) (at [10]). Such an approach is consistent with established principles relating to appeals from tribunals that are not in the nature of a rehearing, such as an appeal from a decision of the PAR.

7 The smorgasbord of trade mark cases which has reached the appellate courts demonstrates the innumerable (and subjectively perceived) similarities and differences that can be conjured up and persuasively articulated by an imaginative and inventive legal mind. Expert and experienced judges, such as Laddie J, have described trade mark infringement as “more a matter of feel than science” (in Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants plc [1995] FSR 713 at 732), and Chao Hick Tin JA (as he then was) similarly alluded to it as a matter of “perception” (in The Polo/Lauren Co, LP v Shop-In Department Store Pte Ltd [2006] 2 SLR 690 at [35]). In the light of the highly subjective nature of assessing similarity and the likelihood of confusion, we agree with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Ozone Community Corporation v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 January 2010
    ...536 (not folld) European Ltd, The v The Economist Newspaper Ltd [1998] ETMR 307 (refd) Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald's Corp [2007] 2 SLR (R) 845; [2007] 2 SLR 845 (refd) Itochu Corp v Worldwide Brands, Inc [2007] SGIPOS 9 (refd) Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Uni-Ch......
  • Festina Lotus SA v Romanson Co Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 July 2010
    ...in SC Prodal 94 SRL v Spirits International NV [2003] EWHC 2756 (Ch) which was endorsed in Future Enterprises Pte Ltd McDonald’s Corp [2007] 2 SLR(R) 845 at [5]: It is not the duty of this court to overturn a decision of the Trade Mark Registry simply because it comes to the conclusion that......
  • Martek Biosciences Corp v Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 May 2010
    ...Nature of appeal under O 87A is akin to that under O 57 ROC The Respondent cited Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald’s Corp [2007] 2 SLR(R) 845 (“Future Enterprises”) which alluded to the general reluctance on the part of the appellate court in disturbing a finding made by the Registrar o......
  • MediaCorp News Pte Ltd v Astro All Asia Networks PLC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 August 2009
    ...me. I pause to observe the standard of review applicable in the present proceedings. In Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald’s Corp [2007] 2 SLR 845 (“Future Enterprises”), the Court of Appeal held (at 5 On issues (a) [whether the applicant’s mark was similar to the opponent’s mark] and (b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • THE SENSE AND SENSIBILITY IN THE ANTI-DILUTION RIGHT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...Pte Ltd v Hoe Huat Hng Foodstuffs Pte Ltd[1991] 1 SLR(R) 903 at [24] (for passing off) and Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald's Corp[2007] 2 SLR(R) 845 at [7] (for the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)). 5 For an excellent summary of the principles and factors governing the confusio......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...Sdot-Yam Ltd v Ceramiche Caesar SpA [2016] 2 SLR 1129. 70 Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 308. 71 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 845 at [5]–[7]. 72 Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed, which is worded identically in the current edition – Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed). 73 Ce......
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...17.1 There were three trade mark judgments delivered in 2007 (in chronological order): (a) Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald”s Corp[2007] 2 SLR 845 (CA). These were trade mark opposition proceedings. The main focus of the dispute was on s 8 of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT