South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesk

Case Studies

Geographical Indications in Singapore, a case study

Background

The Consortium for Parmigiano Reggiano cheese applied to register the Geographical Indication (GI) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’. The GI application was accepted and published for opposition purposes on 10 May 2019.
The deadline to file a notice of opposition was 21 June 2019.

Action taken

On 10 June 2019, the US Dairy Export Council (the opponent) requested a time extension ‘for up to 6 months’ to file its notice of opposition. The opponent’s request was based on fairly standard grounds, namely that: the opponent was recently made aware of the publication of the applicant’s GI; the agent had just been appointed and required more time to take instruction; more time was needed to prepare evidence.

Case Study 1 - Bad faith of franchisee imitating franchisor's trade mark in Thailand

Background:

A foreign company (“Foreign Company”) had registered its trade mark in its head-quarter country but had not done so in Thailand. It entered into a franchise agreement with a Thai company (“Thai Company”), permitting the Thai Company to “use” its trade mark in Thailand. During the contract term, the Thai Company sneakily filed and registered copycat marks in Thailand, imitating the Foreign Company’s trade mark. As soon as the registration was approved, the Thai Company terminated the franchise agreement to pursue its own business exploiting the newly registered trade marks.

Case Study 26 - High court decision on patented rights in Malaysia

Background:

A foreign Pharmaceutical company (“Foreign Company”) owned a Malaysian Patent covering a pharmaceutical product of alendronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt (alendronate) to inhibit bone resorption in humans. Whereas, a Malaysian company (“Malaysian company”) was granted approval by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau to market "Alendronate" 70 mg tablets.

Case Study 25 - Enforcing IPR against Parallel Importation into Singapore

Background:

Samsonite IP Holdings Sarl (“Samsonite”) granted its Chinese subsidiary a license to use the SAMSONITE marks in China. Through a co-branding agreement with Lenovo PC HK Ltd (“Lenovo”), it was mutually decided that Samsonite would supply specific models of SAMSONITE backpacks to Lenovo. These backpacks were to bear at least one of the SAMSONITE marks as well as the LENOVO mark. Lenovo would then give away the backpacks in conjunction with the sale of certain models of LENOVO laptops, exclusively within China.

Case Study 24 - Trade mark owner and Exclusive distributor jointly enforcing their rights in Cambodia

Background:

The European company (“Company A”) duly registered its trade mark in relation to cosmetic products in Cambodia. Subsequently, it granted exclusive distribution rights of the cosmetics bearing its registered trade mark (the “branded cosmetics”) to a local distributor in Cambodia (“Company B”), who has filed and recorded its exclusive distribution right with the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) of the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) according to Cambodian regulations. Recently, Company B has discovered that a third party (“Company C”) practiced parallel import of the branded cosmetics into the Cambodian market.

Case Study 23 - Trade mark bad-faith registration in Indonesia

Background:

A famous fashion designer was planning to promote its brand in Indonesia. However, after carrying out a trade mark search, it discovered that a third party had registered that trade mark in Indonesia. As trade marks in South-East Asia follow the ‘first-to-file’ principle, the fashion designer cannot register the mark in Indonesia anymore even though it owns the mark in several other countries.

Case Study 22 - Potential patent invalidation under the new Patent Law in Indonesia

Background:

A chemical manufacturer was unsure about the provisions on potential patent invalidation of the new Patent Law of Indonesia, which sets a new potential ground for patent invalidation and came into effect in August 2016. Based on the new Patent Law, any patent might be vulnerable to invalidation if the patent holder does not produce the products or use the process within Indonesia. Given that the law is quite recent, it remains uncertain how the provision will be interpreted in court. 

Case Study 21 - Misplaced interpretation of due process requirement in the Philippines

Background:

A trade mark owner in the Philippines found out that a local retail shop had been selling counterfeit products that infringed his registered trade mark for quite some time and it wanted to stop this illicit activity which was incurring economic damages to his company.  

Case Study 20 - Copyright enforcement actions against illegal downloading in Singapore

Background:

Two Hollywood studios, “Voltage Pictures” and “QOTD Film Investment”, are the right owners of the two movies “Father & Daughters” and “Queen of the Desert”. They have been subject to serious copyright infringement carried out by illegal downloaders in Singapore for quite some time.