Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Company Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Company Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date02 March 2009
Date02 March 2009
Docket NumberCivil Appeals Nos 58 and 65 of 2008

Court of Appeal

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeals Nos 58 and 65 of 2008

Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal
Defendant

Tan Tee Jim SC, Christopher de Souza, Ng Guan Zhen and Zheng Shaokai (Lee & Lee) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 58 of 2008 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 65 of 2008

M Ravindran, Heng Su Lin Vicki and Sukumar Karuppiah (Ravindran Associates) for the first respondent in Civil Appeal No 58 of 2008 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 65 of 2008

Lau Kok Keng and Low Wei Ling Wendy (Rajah & Tann LLP) for the second respondent in Civil Appeal No 58 of 2008.

AD2000 Trade Mark [1997] RPC 168 (refd)

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 (refd)

Ajit Weekly Trade Mark [2006] RPC 25 (refd)

Alcon Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market [2004] ETMR 6 (refd)

Alcon Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market [2005] ETMR 69 (refd)

Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v The British Phonographic Industry Limited [1986] FSR 159 (refd)

Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV [2003] ETMR 85 (refd)

Attorney-General v Able [1984] 1 QB 795 (refd)

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Zauyah Wan Chik [1995] 2 MLJ 620 (refd)

Bach and Bach Flower Remedies Trade Marks [2000] RPC 513 (not folld)

Bentley Motors (1931) Ld v Lagonda, Ld and Walker Owen Bentley (1947) 64 RPC 33 (refd)

Björnekulla Fruktindustrier AB v Procordia Food AB [2004] RPC 45 (refd)

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 (refd)

Bourke v Hamilton [1977] 1 NSWLR 470 (refd)

Cabanas Habana (Device) Trade Mark [2000] RPC 26 (refd)

Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs [2006] 1 SLR (R) 582; [2006] 1 SLR 582 (refd)

Coles v Wood [1981] 1 NSWLR 723 (refd)

Conwell v Tapfield [1981] 1 NSWLR 595 (refd)

Dato' Wan Mustapha bin Haji Ali v Pengurus Pejabat Tempatan, Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial Pekerja, Kota Bharu [2000] 1 MLJ 95 (refd)

Davidoff Extension SA v Davidoff Commercio E Industria Ltda [1987] SLR (R) 550; [1987] SLR 462 (refd)

Executrices of the Estate of Diana, Princess of Wales' Application [2001] ETMR 25 (refd)

Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin [1997] 3 SLR (R) 649; [1998] 1 SLR 374 (refd)

Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (refd)

Gramophone Company's Application, In re [1910] 2 Ch 423 (refd)

Green v Jones (1979) 39 FLR 428 (refd)

Gromax Plasticulture Ltd v Don & Low Nonwovens Ltd [1999] RPC 367 (refd)

Hanson v Radcliffe Urban District Council [1922] 2 Ch 490 (refd)

Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 2577 (refd)

Hormel Foods Corp v Antilles Landscape Investments NV [2005] RPC 28 (refd)

Imperial Group Ltd v Philip Morris & Co Ltd [1982] FSR 72 (refd)

Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General [1981] AC 718 (folld)

Jaguar Trade Mark, Re [1993] 1 SLR (R) 387; [1993] 2 SLR 466 (refd)

Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v AG [1990] 1 SLR (R) 590; [1990] SLR 610 (refd)

Ko Teck Siang v Low Fong Mei [1992] 1 SLR (R) 22; [1992] 1 SLR 454 (refd)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2003] Ch 159 (folld)

La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA [2004] FSR 38 (refd)

La Mer Technology Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market [2008] ETMR 9 (refd)

Laboratoire de La Mer Trade Marks [2002] FSR 51 (refd)

Laboratoires Goemar SA v La Mer Technology Inc [2005] ETMR 114 (refd)

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2005] 3 SLR (R) 157; [2005] 3 SLR 157 (refd)

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR (R) 875; [2009] 1 SLR 875 (refd)

Lee Yee Seng v Golden Star Video Bhd [1981] 2 MLJ 43 (refd)

Linoleum Manufacturing Company v Nairn (1877-78) 7 Ch D 834 (refd)

McDonald's Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR (R) 177; [2005] 1 SLR 177 (refd)

Merz & Krell GmbH & Co [2002] ETMR 21 (refd)

Moss v Brown [1979] 1 NSWLR 114 (refd)

Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec Plc [2006] 1 SLR (R) 712; [2006] 1 SLR 712 (refd)

National Dairies Ltd v Xie Chun Trading Pte Ltd [1997] 2 SLR (R) 969; [1998] 1 SLR 620 (refd)

Nichols v State of Queensland [1983] 1 Qd R 580 (refd)

Nike International Ltd v Campomar SL [2006] 1 SLR (R) 919; [2006] 1 SLR 919 (refd)

Osprey, The [1999] 3 SLR (R) 1099; [2000] 1 SLR 281 (refd)

Perry v Nash (1980) 47 FLR 210 (refd)

Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1999] RPC 809 (refd)

“Philosophy di Alberta Ferretti” Trade Mark [2003] RPC 15 (refd)

Premier Brands UK Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd [2000] FSR 767 (refd)

Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v The Premier Company (UK) Ltd [2001] FSR 29, HC (refd)

Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (UK) Ltd [2003] FSR 5, CA (refd)

Qinghai Medicines & Health Products Import and Export Corp v Wing Thye Loong [2001] SGIPOS 2 (refd)

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AG [2003] 4 SLR (R) 155; [2003] 4 SLR 155 (refd)

Regina v Attorney General [2004] 1 AC 357 (refd)

Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd v Maycolson International Ltd [2006] 2 SLR (R) 551; [2006] 2 SLR 551 (refd)

Rousselon Freres ET CIE v Horwood Homewares Limited [2008] RPC 30 (refd)

Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800 (refd)

Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade, Limited [1921] 2 AC 438 (refd)

Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 (refd)

Scandecor Development AB v Scandecor Marketing AB [2002] FSR 7 (refd)

Seiko Epson Corp v Sepoms Technology Pte Ltd [2008] 1 SLR (R) 269; [2008] 1 SLR 269 (refd)

Smith v Braintree District Council [1990] 2 AC 215 (refd)

Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co Ltd v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft [2007] SGIPOS 3 (refd)

Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd v Unico Trading Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR (R) 214; [2000] 3 SLR 145 (refd)

T v T [1988] Fam 52 (refd)

Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 844; [1991] SLR 798 (refd)

Turner v London Transport Executive [1977] ICR 952 (refd)

Weir Warman Ltd v Research & Development Pty Ltd [2007] 2 SLR (R) 1073; [2007] 2 SLR 1073 (refd)

Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 1 WLR 1238 (refd)

West v Fuller Smith & Turner Plc [2002] FSR 55, HC (refd)

West v Fuller Smith & Turner Plc [2003] FSR 44, CA (refd)

Yomeishu Seizo Co Ltd v Sinma Medical Products (S) Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 246; [1991] SLR 499 (refd)

ZIPPO Trade Mark [1999] RPC 173 (refd)

Copyright Act (Cap 63,2006 Rev Ed)

Evidence Act (Cap 97,1997 Rev Ed)s 104

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)O 15r 16, O 59r 3 (2) (consd)

Trade Marks Act (Cap 206,1970 Rev Ed)s 39

Trade Marks Act (Cap 332,1992 Ed)ss 39, 39 (1),39 (1) (a)

Trade Marks Act (Cap 332,1999 Rev Ed)ss 7 (6), 22 (1),22 (7)

Trade Marks Act (Cap 332,2005 Rev Ed)ss 2 (1), 7, 7 (1), 7 (1) (a), 7 (1) (d), 7 (6), 22, 22 (1), 22 (1) (a), 22 (1) (b), 22 (1) (c), 23, 23 (1), 23 (4) (consd);ss 5,7 (1) (b),7 (1) (c),7 (2), 8 (3),12, 12 (2),13, 13 (1),22 (3), 22 (5),22 (6), 22 (7),23 (5), 38,39, 101,101 (c) (i),101 (c) (ii),105, Third Scheduleparas 10 (1),17 (2)

Trade Marks Act 1998 (Act 46 of 1998)ss 22, 23,109

Abortion Act 1967 (c 87) (UK)s 1 (1)

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade MarkArts 7 (1) (d),51 (1) (a)

Court of Chancery Act 1850 (c 35) (UK)s 14

Lotteries and Amusements Act1976 (c 32) (UK)

Trade Marks Act 1994 (c 26) (UK)ss 3, 3 (1) (a),3 (1) (d), 46,46 (1) (c),47

Trade Marks Act1995 (Cth)

Civil Procedure–Costs–Principles–Exercise of court's discretion as to costs was that where there were two (or more) co-defendants–General rule that only one set of costs would be payable–Separate costs where reasonable grounds had been shown for severance of defences–Whether reasonable grounds existed for severance of defences–Order 59 r 3 (2) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)–Civil Procedure–Declaratory order–Power to grant declaration–Power to grant declaration as to criminal consequences of conduct–Exercise of discretion to grant declaration as to criminal consequences of conduct–General rule that court would be slow to grant declaration unless circumstances were exceptional–Whether or not exceptional circumstances existed–Order 15 r 16 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)–Copyright–Declaratory order–Declaration sought that any copyright in various labels did not subsist in favour of defendants and that plaintiff had not infringed any such copyright–Whether declaration ought to have been given–Courts and Jurisdiction–Declaratory order–Jurisdiction of court to grant declaration–Jurisdiction to grant declaration as to criminal consequences of conduct–Exercise of discretion to grant declaration as to criminal consequences of conduct–General rule that court would be slow to grant declaration unless circumstances were exceptional–Whether or not exceptional circumstances existed–Order 15 r 16 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)–Trade Marks and Trade Names–Invalidity–Registration criteria–Capable of distinguishing–Whether opposed mark was capable of distinguishing–Customary mark–Whether opposed mark was customary–Bad faith–Whether opposed mark was registered in bad faith–Fraud and misrepresentation–Whether registration of opposed mark had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation–Residual discretion not to grant relief where grounds for revocation and/or invalidation had been made out–Sections 7 (1) (a), 7 (1) (d), 7 (6), 23 (1) and 23 (4) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)–Trade Marks and Trade Names–Revocation–Genuine use for five years following registration–Whether there had been genuine use of opposed mark–Non-use for uninterrupted period of five years–Whether there had been use of opposed mark–Common name in the trade–Whether opposed mark had become common name in the trade–Residual discretion not to grant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • PT Swakarya Indah Busana v Dhan International Exim Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 December 2009
    ...2 SLR (R) 1073; [2007] 2 SLR 1073 (refd) Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2009] 2 SLR 814 (folld) Yomeishu Seizo Co Ltd v Sinma Medical Products (S) Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 246; [1991] SLR 499 (folld) Trade Mar......
  • Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 26 March 2010
    ...this court in Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 (“Wing Joo Loong”) at [33]: It is trite law that the legal burden of proof needed to substantiate an action for revocation and/or invali......
  • Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Hashu Dhalomal Shahdadpuri and another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 June 2011
    ...[36]–[38] and Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 at [171]–[173]). In the case of striking out pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, this court said in Gabriel Peter & ......
  • Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 June 2010
    ...3 SLR (R) 501; [2003] 3 SLR 501 (folld) Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2009] 2 SLR 814 (refd) Yeo Nai Meng v Ei-Nets Ltd [2004] 1 SLR (R) 73; [2004] 1 SLR 73 (refd) Defamation Act (Cap 75,1985 Rev Ed) s 8 Law ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Intellectual Property Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...experienced men in the particular area of trade being examined (Wing Joo Loong Ginseng (S) Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 at [103]; Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc[2010] 2 SLR 1203 at [25]). This general guideline on bad faith has now acquired ......

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