Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd v Ferrero SpA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 16 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGCA 56
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 102 of 2011
• Published date: 01 November 2012
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 09 January 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Tee Jim S.C., Zechariah Chan Jin Han and Jeremiah Chew (Lee & Lee)
• Defendant Counsel: M. Ravindran, Sukumar Karuppiah and Justin Blaze George (Ravindran Associates)
• Subject Matter: Trade Marks and Trade Names,Tort,Passing Off
• Citation: [2012] SGCA 56

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

This is an appeal against the decision of a High Court judge (“the Judge”) given in Suit No. 9 of 2010 which was instituted by Ferrero S.P.A (“the Respondent”) against Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd (“the Appellant”) for trade mark infringement and passing off.

The Appellant, a company incorporated in Singapore, is a retailer in the food and beverage business and a wholesaler of coffee, cocoa and tea. It owns and operates a chain of cafe outlets (“cafes”) presently known as “tcc – the connoisseur concerto” (“TCC”). In its cafes, it offers customers, amongst others, a variety of gourmet coffee beverages and coffee concoctions.

The Respondent is a company incorporated in Italy. It manufactures and retails confectionery, including a cocoa-based hazelnut spread (“Nutella spread”) marketed under the brand name “Nutella”, which is the product concerned in the present case. The spread is sold at various retail outlets in Singapore, including supermarkets. The Respondent is the registered proprietor of the following marks (shown below) in Class 30 of the International Classification of Goods and Services in Singapore (“ICGS”). To avoid confusion, we will, as did the Judge, refer to the first mark as the “Nutella” word mark, while all three marks will be referred to collectively as the “Nutella” trademarks:

Background to the dispute

The facts of this case are neither complex nor in serious dispute. On 1 August 2007, the Appellant introduced a new gourmet hot coffee beverage served in a shot glass under the “Nutello” sign in its cafes. As the Judge rightly noted, the term “Nutello” is more appropriately described as a “sign”¹ under the definition in section 2(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) (“TMA”), as distinguished from a “trade mark”² defined in section 2(1) of the TMA. The ingredients in the “Nutello” drink (“Nutello beverage”) comprised espresso, milk foam, cocoa powder and Nutella spread, amongst others. This drink was listed under the “Espresso Specialties” section of the TCC Drinks Gallery Menu (the “menu”). The menu describes the Nutello beverage as: “Espresso with lashings of nutella – perfect for cocoa lovers!” (“menu description”).

To effect sale of the Nutello beverage, the appellant had used the term “Nutello” in various forms in its promotional material such as the menu, booklet and website. They are set out below:

On 3 December 2009, the Respondent issued a cease-and-desist letter to the Appellant, objecting to the latter’s use of the “Nutello” sign and the menu description of the Nutello beverage. Damages amounting to S$50,000 were demanded.

On 15 December 2009, the Appellant requested an extension of one month till 17 January 2010 to respond to the Respondent’s letter, but in a letter dated 16 December 2009, the Respondent refused to accede to this request. On 6 January 2010, the latter instituted Suit No 9 of 2010 (“the action”) in the High Court.

In July 2010, sales of the Nutello beverage were discontinued by the Appellants, ostensibly due to an annual menu overhaul.

The decision below

In the court below, the Judge held that: the Appellant had infringed the Respondent’s “Nutella” word mark under s 27(2)(b) TMA given that there was a similarity of marks and goods resulting in a likelihood of confusion by the relevant public; the Respondent’s “Nutella” marks are well known trademarks both to the relevant sector of the public as well as to the public at large in Singapore. The Appellant had infringed the Respondent’s “Nutella” marks under s 55(2) and s 55(3)(a) TMA, and had diluted the Respondent’s marks under s 55(3)(b)(i) TMA. However, he found that the Appellant had not taken unfair advantage of the distinctive character of the Respondent’s “Nutella” marks under s 55(3)(b)(ii) TMA; and the Appellant had committed the tort of passing vis- à-vis the Respondent’s “Nutella” product when the former promoted and offered for sale its “Nutello” drink.

Consequently, the Judge granted injunctions to restrain the Appellant from infringing the Respondent’s “Nutella” trademarks and from passing off its “Nutello” products as products of, or connected to, the Respondent. He also ordered that damages be assessed.

Issues in the appeal

The appellant raised the following issues in this appeal (with accompanying sub-issues): Whether there is trademark infringement under s 27(2)(b) TMA? (“The First Issue”) Whether the “Nutello” sign is similar to the “Nutella” word mark; Whether the “Nutello” sign was used in goods similar to those which the “Nutella” word mark is registered for; Whether there is a likelihood of confusion by the public? Whether there is trademark infringement under s 55(2) TMA? (“The Second Issue”) Whether there is infringement by damaging connection of well known trademark under s 55(3)(a) TMA? (“The Third Issue”) Whether there is dilution by blurring under s 55(3)(b)(i) TMA? (“The Fourth Issue”) Whether it is conceptually incongruous to find both infringement and dilution; What is required to show dilution in an “unfair manner”; Whether dilution by blurring is made out on the facts? Whether the damage element needed to establish the tort of passing off is made out? (“The Fifth Issue”) Whether actual damage has to be shown to establish the said damage element; Whether the Respondent’s expansion into the Singapore drinks industry would be restricted?

We note that the Appellant is not appealing against the finding of the Judge that the “Nutella” trademarks are well known marks, and neither has the Respondent taken issue with the Judge’s finding that there is no unfair advantage taken by the Appellant of the “Nutella” trademarks’ distinctive character under s 55(3)(b)(ii) TMA.

For ease of reference, we set out here the legislative provisions in the TMA, viz, s 27(2)(b), s 55(2), s 55(3)(a) and s 55(3)(b)(i), that will be referred to in the discussions below:

Acts amounting to infringement of registered trade mark

27. — (1) ...

(2) A person infringes a registered trade mark if, without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, he uses in the course of trade a sign where because — (a) ... (b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,

there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

...

Protection of well known trade marks

55. — (1) ...

(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the proprietor of a well known trade mark shall be entitled to restrain by injunction the use in Singapore, in the course of trade and without the proprietor’s consent, of any trade mark which, or an essential part of which, is identical with or similar to the proprietor’s trade mark, in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where the use is likely to cause confusion. (3) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), the proprietor of a well known trade mark shall be entitled to restrain by injunction the use in Singapore, in the course of trade and without the proprietor’s consent, of any trade mark which, or an essential part of which, is identical with or similar to the proprietor’s trade mark, in relation to any goods or services, where the use of the trade mark — (a) would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the proprietor, and is likely to damage the interests of the proprietor; or (b) if the proprietors trade mark is well known to the public at large in Singapore — (i) would cause dilution in an unfair manner of the distinctive character of the proprietor’s trade mark; ... (ii) ... The decision of this court The First Issue: Whether there is trade mark infringement under section 27(2)(b) TMA?

The step-by-step approach propounded in British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (“British Sugar”) in relation to the English equivalent of s 27(2)(b) TMA was approved and adopted by this Court in The Polo/Lauren Co, LP Shop In Department Store Pte Ltd [2006] SGCA 14 (“Polo (CA)”) at [8]. This court in Polo (CA) was of the view that this approach was conceptually more appropriate and in line with the structure of the provision, as opposed to the global assessment test enunciated by the European Court of Justice in Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1998] RPC 1999 and Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1999] RPC 117. Under s 27(2)(b) TMA, three conditions need to be satisfied in turn for infringement to be established. First, the alleged offending sign, “Nutello”, must be shown to be similar to the registered mark, “Nutella”. Second, both the sign and the mark must be used in relation to identical or similar goods or services. Third, because of the presence of the first two conditions, there must exist a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

(i) Similarity between the “Nutello” sign and the “Nutella” mark

The Judge had found that the “Nutello” sign and the “Nutella” word mark were not identical, and this finding is not challenged by the Respondent. In this appeal, the Appellant has only raised arguments on dissimilarity between the sign and the word mark and sought to dispute the individual findings of the Judge relating to visual, aural and conceptual similarity of the two.

General approach to the similarity analysis

Before we determine whether the sign and the trademark are similar, we will first set out briefly the relevant principles of this analysis. The decided cases have established that the court will consider three aspects of similarity, viz, visual, aural and conceptual similarity: Polo (CA) at [24]; Mobil Petroleum Co, Inc v Hyundai Mobis (“Hyundai Mobis (CA)”) at [17]. However, it is not a pre-requisite that all three aspects of...