Hille International Ltd v Tiong Hin Engineering Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A P Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 22 October 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 34
• Citation: [1982] SGHC 34
• Date: 22 October 1982
• Year: 1982
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lai Siu Chiu (Allen & Gledhill)
• Docket Number: Suit No 595 of 1979
• Defendant Counsel: SK Isaac (Isaac & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

The plaintiffs` claim against the defendants is for (1) infringement of their registered trade mark `hille` (pronounced as in `hilly`) No 50243 (the said trade mark) and (2) passing off the defendants` polypropylene chair shells as and for those of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and have their registered office at 132 St Albans Road, Watford, Hertfordshire WD 24 AG, United Kingdom. The said trade mark was registered in Class 20, in respect of furniture and parts and fittings therefor, on 7 October 1970 and such registration is and has, at all material times, been valid and subsisting.

Since 1968 the plaintiffs have used the said trade mark extensively upon their polypropylene chair shells and their polypropylene chair shells so marked have come to be well known in the trade and to the public as those of the plaintiffs.

The defendants were incorporated in 1974 as a private limited company. They acquired and took over as a going concern the firm of Tiong Hin Engineering Works and continued to carry on the business of the said firm mainly manufacturing steel office furniture and household furniture. The defendants are the registered proprietors of the Trade Mark `Sunflag` and `DAGLO` which were registered in 1974 and 1977 respectively in Class 20, in respect of all types of furniture.

In 1975 the defendants became aware for the first time that the plaintiffs were selling polypropylene shells under the mark `hille`. (See interrogatory 8 and answer thereto.) In 1976 or thereabouts they decided to manufacture polypropylene shells but before this could be done a mould in the requisite shape had to be made. The chairman of the defendant company (DW1) happened to be in Taiwan in March 1977. There he saw, so his evidence goes, many such shells - the `hille` shell was not amongst those he saw. He examined these shells and bought one of them which, in his view, suited his requirements for manufacture in Singapore. At the same time he, although he knew no English, invented a trade mark in the English language, to wit, `CILLY` (pronounced as in `silly`.) He then ordered in Taiwan a mould to be made of the shell he had bought and with the word `CILLY` incorporated into the mould. His `CILLY` polypropylene shell manufactured from the said mould came on to the market in or about July 1977.

The plaintiffs say that, since the registration of their said trade mark and prior to the issue of the writ in this action on 27 February 1979, the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs` said trade mark `hille` by their using, in the course of trade in Singapore in relation to their polypropylene chair shells, the trade mark `CILLY` which look and sound so alike the said trade mark that it could lead to confusion or deception or a possibility of such confusion or deception.

The plaintiffs further say that such use of the mark `CILLY` by the defendants not only infringes their said trade mark but is also calculated to lead to deception and to the belief that the defendants` polypropylene chair shells are the polypropylene chair shells of the plaintiffs and is further calculated to cause and must have caused polypropylene chair shells not of the plaintiffs` manufacture or merchandise to be passed off as and for the polypropylene chair shells of the...