LAWWATCH
0
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
• Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act
o The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act (“GST Amendment
Act”) was passed by Parliament on 8 October 2014 and took effect
on 1 January 2015.
o New provisions in the GST Amendment Act will allow non-legal
entities (each an “NLE”) to claim GST incurred on acquisitions of
intellectual property rights or licences to use any intellectual property
rights and account for GST on supplies of such intellectual property
rights or licences.
o This puts NLEs on par with legal entities such as companies. An
NLE refers to a partnership or limited partnership, or any club,
association, society, or organisation.
COPYRIGHT:
• Omnibill (Pty) Ltd v EGPSXXX Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] EWHC 3762
(IPEC) (England, High Court, 17 November 2014)
o The plaintiff operates a website in South Africa.
o The defendants set up a website in the UK offering a competing service
and used copyrighted photographs from the plaintiff’s website.
o The plaintiff brought a claim for copyright infringement in the UK. In
order to establish that the defendants’ website had infringed the
plaintiff’s copyright in the UK, the plaintiff had to show that the
website or the relevant parts of it was targeted at the UK.
o The question of whether a website is targeted to a particular country
is a multi-factorial consideration which depends on all the
circumstances, including things which can be inferred from looking at
the content of the website itself as well as elements arising from the
inherent nature of the services offered by the website.
o The English High Court held that the defendants’ website was
targeted at the UK, noting among other things that a significant
number of its visitors were from the UK. Accordingly, it held that the
defendants had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright.
• PP v St. Hua Private School Pte Ltd, Song Chunwei [2014] SGDC
342 (Singapore, District Court, 29 August 2014)
o This case offers a rare opportunity to consider the application of
section 136(3A) of the Copyright Act.
o This section makes it a criminal offence to wilfully infringe copyright
to obtain a commercial advantage.
o A company (with the connivance of its sole director and shareholder)
had wilfully offered training courses in a particular software on a
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
1
2
4
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
o
o
commercial basis despite knowing that it did not have a licence to do so.
The Singapore District Court held that the company was guilty of an
offence under section 136(3A) of the Copyright Act (wilful
infringement of copyright) and fined it S$18,000.
The Court also held that the company’s sole director was guilty of an
offence under section 201B(4) of the Copyright Act (offences of a
body corporate committed with the connivance of a director) and
fined her S$20,000.
REGISTERED DESIGNS:
• Biscuits Poult SAS v OHIM, Case T-494/12 (Europe, European Court
of Justice, 9 September 2014)
o The applicant filed an application for registration of a Community
design in respect of cookies, on the basis that the cookie when
broken showed a single layer of chocolate filling.
o The Biscuits Design was declared invalid on the ground that it lacked
individual character and the applicant appealed to the European
Court of Justice.
o The Court noted that under Council Regulation No. 6/2002 on
Community Designs, protection of a design is restricted to visible
elements and to the impression produced on an informed user
viewing the product’s appearance.
o It therefore held that the since the layer of chocolate filling inside the
cookie was not visible because the product had to be broken open
for the filling to become visible, this particular characteristic of the
design should not be taken into account for the assessment of its
individual character.
TRADE MARKS:
• Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWCA 1403 (Civ)
(England, Court of Appeal, 5 November 2014)
o Interflora provides an online service for the ordering and delivery
of flowers.
o Marks & Spencer also provides on online flower delivery service that
is wholly unrelated to Interflora.
o Marks & Spencer advertised its flowers online via the Google
Adwords service. It entered into a contract which provided that when
consumers searched for the name “interflora” or variants thereof, a
Marks & Spencer advertisement for flowers would appear on the
search page.
o The English Court of Appeal held that such activity might amount to
infringing use of the “interflora” trademark if it gave rise to confusion
on the part of the average consumer as to the origin of the goods. It
remitted the case back for retrial.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
7
10
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act
The Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act (“GST Amendment Act”)
was passed by Parliament on 8 October 2014 and took effect on 1 January
2015. It amended the Goods and Services Tax Act (“GST Act”) to provide for,
among other things, the situation where a bare trustee of a non-legal entity
(“NLE”) holds any goods, intellectual property rights, or the licence to use any
intellectual property rights on trust for the business of persons carrying on the
business in partnership or a person that is a club, an association, a society,
or an organisation.
Key Features of the Bill
To discuss the possible
implications of this for your
business, please contact:
LAM Chung Nian
d: +65 6416 8271
e: chungnian.lam@
wongpartnership.com
The amendments aim to put NLEs on par with legal entities in relation to their
tax implications for supplies relating to goods, intellectual property rights, and
licences to use intellectual property rights.
A new section 10A will be added to the GST Act such that supplies of goods,
intellectual property rights, and licences to use intellectual property rights
made to a bare trustee will be deemed to be made to the NLE. Similarly,
section 19 of the current GST Act will be amended such that supplies relating
to the same made by the bare trustee on behalf of an NLE will be deemed to
be made by the NLE.
Jeffrey LIM
d: +65 6416 8250
e: jeffrey.lim@
wongpartnership.com
The definition of “bare trustee” will be added to section 2(1) of the GST Act, to
mean a trustee who:
• holds any goods on trust for the business of NLEs;
• has no interest in those goods other than by reason of being the
trustee; and
• has no duty to perform in relation to those goods other than to act with
instructions given by the NLE for supply relating to those goods.
Previously, NLEs were not able to claim input tax on supplies made to the
bare trustee. NLEs will now be able to claim input tax and will need to charge
output tax in relation to the deemed supplies.
The GST Amendment Act further clarifies that the reference to a supply
relating to goods in sections 21(6A) and (6B) and 21B of the current GST Act
is a reference to a sale or letting on hire of goods, and not any other service
that may be performed in relation to goods.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
2
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
COPYRIGHT
The plaintiff operates a website in South Africa. The defendants set up
a website in the UK offering a competing service and used copyrighted
photographs from the plaintiff’s website. Held that the defendants had
infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the UK as it could be shown that
the defendants’ website was targeted at the UK and hence infringement
of UK copyright had taken place:
-- Omnibill (Pty) Ltd v EGPSXXX Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] EWHC 3762
(IPEC) (England, High Court, 17 November 2014)
Facts
Omnibill (Pty) Ltd (the “Plaintiff”) operates a website for the provision of
escort services in South Africa. The first defendant, a UK incorporated
company, set up a website offering similar and competing services, and
copies of the photographs on the Plaintiff’s website appeared on it
(“Infringing Website”). The second defendant, Mr Carter, is the sole
director and sole shareholder of the First Defendant (“Second
Defendant”). The technical work to set up the Infringing Website was
undertaken by Mr van Tonder, a South African national, whom the Second
Defendant met at a party.
The Plaintiff brought a claim against the First and Second Defendants for
copyright infringement. It was undisputed that the copyright in the
photographs belong to the Plaintiff or that copies of the photographs were
reproduced onto the Infringing Website. A major issue in this case was
whether the Infringing Website or the relevant parts of it were targeted at the
UK. The contention was that if the Infringing Website was not targeted at the
UK, then no infringement of UK copyright had taken place.
Decision
The English High Court held that the First Defendant had infringed the
Plaintiff’s copyright and that, having authorised those infringing acts, the
Second Defendant was liable as a joint tortfeasor.
The Court first noted that the question of whether a website is targeted to a
particular country is a multi-factorial consideration which depends on all the
circumstances, including things which can be inferred from looking at the
content of the website itself as well as elements arising from the inherent
nature of the services offered by the website. In deciding whether the acts of
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
3
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
communication to the public are targeted at the public in the UK, the Court
would consider the following factors:
• the international nature of the activity;
• the use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency
generally used in the territory in which the trader is established;
• the mention of telephone numbers with an international code;
• outlay of expenditure on an internet referencing service in order to
facilitate access to the trader’s site or that of its intermediary by
consumers domiciled in other territories;
• the use of a top-level domain name other than that of the territory in which
the trader is established; and
• mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in
various territories.
The Court agreed with the Plaintiff that the Infringing Website could target
more than one territory and that did not preclude the claim that there was
communication to the public in the UK. The Court also agreed that it was
possible for different parts of the website to target different territories and this
was a question of fact.
In this instance, the Court paid particular attention to the number of visitors
accessing the website from the UK. The Court held that whilst such evidence
may not be determinative, it would support a conclusion that the acts of
communication to the public were targeted at the public in the UK. Based on
the traffic information provided by the Plaintiff with regard to the number of
visitors to the Infringing Website, the Court concluded that between 10% to
25% of the visitors to the South African sub-domain were from the UK and that
this figure constituted a substantial proportion of the visitors to the website.
The Court also concluded that there was communication to the public in the
UK based on the structure and overall website. In particular, the Court
referred to:
• the Terms and Conditions of the Infringing Website (which states “This site
is operated from the United Kingdom. The courts of the United Kingdom
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all claims or disputes arising in
relation to, out of or in connection with this website and its use and these
terms”); and
• the Terms of Service (which states “Escortgps is owned and operated by
EGPSXXX Ltd, a UK based company dedicated to providing a top quality,
legal and ethical English escort website”).
Lastly, the Court held that even though the Infringing Website had subdomains, these sub-domains were merely part of the whole global website
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
4
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
and were not exclusively targeted at individual countries. Accordingly, the
Court held that one could infer from the content of the Infringing Website that
the operators intended that visitors from the UK would visit the South African
sub-domain. While the Court acknowledged that there was a significant local
element to the content of the South African sub-domain (for example, the
services offered by the escorts were located in South Africa and the prices
quoted were in Rand), this was not necessarily a barrier to concluding that
the website was also targeted at the UK since one important way through
which the operators of the Escortgps website earned revenue was by
generating traffic to the site and earning money from advertising (and this
traffic could be from anywhere in the world).
Our Comments / Analysis
Section 26 of the Singapore Copyright Act and section 20 of the UK
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are similar to the extent that the
communication to the public of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work is
an act that is exclusive to the owner of the copyright. Neither pieces of
legislation define what the “public” is.
In light of ever-improving technology and the increasing role which the
internet plays in our lives, the case law developments in the UK may serve as
valuable guidance on other considerations in addition to the factors that the
court is to consider when determining if the communication of the work
targets the public in Singapore.
Where the two accused had knowingly and wilfully continued to offer
training courses in a particular software for a fee despite not having a
licence to do so, held that they had infringed the copyright in the
software to obtain a commercial advantage and were guilty of an
offence under sections 136(3A) and 201B(4) of the Copyright Act:
-- PP v St. Hua Private School Pte Ltd, Song Chunwei [2014] SGDC 342
(Singapore, District Court, 29 August 2014)
This case offers a rare opportunity to consider the application of section
136(3A) of the Copyright Act. This section provides as follows:
“Where, at any time when copyright subsists in a work:
(a) a person does any act that constitutes an infringement of
the copyright in a work other than an act referred to in
subsection (1), (2), (3) or (6);
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
5
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
(b) the infringement of the copyright in the work by the person
is wilful; and
(c) either or both of the following apply:
(i) …
(ii) the person does the act to obtain a commercial
advantage,
the person shall be guilty of an offence…”
Facts
Song Chunwei (“Song”) was the director and sole shareholder of St Hua Pte
Ltd (“St Hua PL”). St Hua PL had been appointed as a reseller of software
(“Siemens Software”) published by Siemens Product Lifecycle Management
Software Inc. (“Siemens”). It was also authorised to carry out training
courses on the use of the Siemens Software. The licences to sell the
Siemens Software and to carry out training courses in the Siemens Software
were terminated with effect from 31 March 2010, and the Siemens Software
had to be uninstalled after that date.
Song incorporated St. Hua Private School Pte Ltd (“St Hua PSPL”) on 15
April 2010, barely two weeks after 31 March 2010 when St Hua PL was no
longer permitted to use the Siemens Software to conduct training. She was
its sole director and shareholder. St Hua PSPL continued to offer training
courses on Siemens Software. The Singapore District Court found on the
facts that Song, knowing that St Hua PL was no longer permitted to use the
Siemens Software to conduct training, simply incorporated St Hua PSPL to
continue offering training courses on the Siemens Software, in order to
circumvent the prohibition against St Hua PL in doing so.
St Hua PSPL and Song were charged by way of private summons on behalf
of Siemens for:
• Wilfully infringing copyright in the Siemens Software; and
• Authorising students attending the Siemens Software training course to
reproduce material from copies of the Siemens Software without the
appropriate licence to do so.
They were prosecuted for copyright offences under section 136(3A) of the
Copyright Act (wilful infringement of copyright) and 201B(4) of the Copyright
Act (offences of a body corporate committed with the connivance of a
director) respectively.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
6
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
Decision
The Singapore District Court found St Hua PSPL guilty of infringement of copyright:
• Copyright subsisted in the Siemens Software at the time of the offence.
• By installing the Siemens Software in seven computer desktops after 31
March 2010 when St Hua PL was no longer authorised to use the
software, St Hua PSPL had reproduced in material form seven copies of
the Siemens Software.
• Additionally, by allowing the students to use the Siemens Software to
practise creating various objects and then saving the works in the
computer, St Hua PSPL had authorised the students to reproduce in
material form 11 copies of the Siemens Software in its computer desktops
after 31 March 2010.
St Hua PSPL was further found to have “wilfully” infringed this copyright:
• Song was aware that as of 31 March 2010, her related companies did not
have the right to use the Siemens Software for training or maintenance.
• St Hua PL continued to represent itself on its website as the channel
partner of Siemens and training provider after 31 March 2010, which
resulted in Siemens sending Song a cease and desist letter, after which
Song ceased these representations.
• Song had set up St Hua PSPL shortly after 31 March 2010 for no apparent
reason other than to evade the prohibition against St Hua PL using the
Siemens Software.
• St Hua PSPL had authorised its students to infringe Siemens’ copyright.
• St Hua PSPL was offering the training course on Siemens Software on
a commercial basis to obtain a commercial advantage in the form of
course fees.
The Court accordingly imposed a fine of S$18,000 on St Hua PSPL.
Song was found guilty of an offence under section 201B(4) of the Copyright
Act: the offence committed by St Hua PSPL had been committed with her
connivance in her capacity as a director of St Hua PSPL. She was found to
have been the main driving force for St Hua PSPL’s activities, being directly
involved in the running of the school’s activities. She was fined S$20,000.
Our Analysis / Comments
Section 136(3A) was inserted into the Copyright Act in 2004 to provide for
criminal penalties for wilful copyright infringement in cases where the extent
of infringement is significant, or where the individual carried out the act to
obtain a commercial advantage. The amendment had been made in a bid to
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
7
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
counter the ease with which copyright-infringing syndicates were riding on
improving internet technology to post movies and software online, as such
activities may cause substantial harm to the copyright owner. Most of the
cases citing section 136(3A) to date have applied the section in connection
with an organisation’s installation of unlicensed or infringing software
programmes on their computers.
The case is also interesting in its application of the legal test as to the factors
to be considered for liability for authorisation of infringement of copyright. The
decision not only re-affirms the position that the factors stated in RecordTV
Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors (2011) for considering
authorisation liability are to be considered in their totality and in the context of
the factual matrix of each case, it is also a useful precedent where a finding
of liability for authorising infringement was made.
REGISTERED DESIGNS
The applicant filed an application for registration of a Community
design in respect of cookies, on the basis that the cookie when broken
showed a single layer of chocolate. Held that the since the layer of
chocolate filling inside the cookie was not visible because the product
had to be broken open for the filling to become visible, this particular
characteristic of the design should not be taken into account for the
assessment of its individual character:
-- Biscuits Poult SAS v OHIM, Case T-494/12 (Europe, European Court
of Justice, 9 September 2014)
Facts
On March 2009 the applicant, Biscuits Poult SAS (“Biscuits”), filed an
application for registration of a Community design with the Office of
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) pursuant to Council
Regulation No. 6/2002 on Community Designs (“Regulations”). The design
(“Biscuits Design”) in respect of which registration was sought was
intended to be applied to “cookies” and is represented below:
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
8
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
On February 2010, the intervener, Banketbakkerij Merba BV
(“Banketbakkerij”), applied to OHIM for a declaration that the Biscuits
Design was invalid pursuant to article 25(1)(b) of the Regulations.
Banketbakkerij alleged that the Biscuits Design:
• was not new;
• lacked individual character; and
• was dictated by its technical function.
Banketbakkerij cited the earlier designs (collectively, the “Earlier Designs”)
set out below in support of its contention:
The Biscuits Design was declared invalid on the ground that it lacked
individual character. Biscuits appealed the decision, arguing that, among
other things, the board of appeal incorrectly refused to consider the internal
appearance of the Biscuits Design, thereby failing to take into account the
differences between the Biscuits Design and the Earlier Designs which
gave the Biscuits Design individual character.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
9
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
Decision
The European Court of Justice dismissed Biscuits’ appeal.
It noted that design is defined under the Regulations as being “the
appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features
of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials
of the product itself and/or its ornamentation”. The protection of a design
consists in the protection of the appearance of a product—for example, any
industrial or handicraft item, or of a part of such an item. The Court also
noted that under the Regulations, protection of a design is restricted to
visible elements and to the impression produced on an informed user
viewing the product’s appearance.
On this basis, and upon further analysis of the Regulations, the Court
therefore concluded that since the layer of chocolate filling inside the cookie
was not visible because the product had to be broken open for the filling to
become visible, this particular characteristic of the Biscuits Design should
not be taken into account for the assessment of the individual character of
the Biscuits Design. Also, the Court noted that the fact that Biscuits’ product
bore a close resemblance to the Biscuits Design when it was broken open
in order to be consumed was irrelevant. Furthermore, the irregular, rough
surface on the outside of the cookie, its golden colour, round shape, and
the presence of chocolate chips are characteristics which are common to
the Earlier Designs and decisive for the overall impression produced on an
informed user. Given the designer’s considerable freedom, these elements
are not liable to produce a different overall impression on an informed user
in such a way as to benefit the Biscuits Design.
Our Comments / Analysis
The Regulations protect designs which are new and which have individual
character. A “design” is defined under the article 3(a) of the Regulations to
mean “the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the
features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or
materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation”, while a “product” is
defined under article 3(b) as “any industrial or handicraft item, including
inter alia parts intended to be assembled into a complex product,
packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but
excluding computer programs”.
As with the Singapore Registered Designs Act, further qualifications have
also been set out as to what can be protected under the Regulations. For
example, article 8 states that a design will not subsist in features of
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
10
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
appearances of a product where such features are dictated by their
technical functions or designs of interconnections. This is not dissimilar to
the definition of “design” under the Singapore Registered Designs Act,
where “design” is defined as “features of shape, configuration, pattern or
ornament applied to an article by an industrial process, but does not
include...features of shape or configuration of an article which are dictated
solely by the function which the article has to perform”.
Given the monopolies afforded under registered design, such rules help to
preserve the function and purpose of the design right, and provides a
balance between rights owners seeking legitimate protection against the
interests of members of the public who are entitled to the freedom to use
designs which are otherwise commonplace.
TRADE MARKS
Where a competitor, not being the registered user of a trademark,
contracted with a search engine such that when consumers searched
for the registered trademark on that search engine, the competitor’s
advertisements appeared, held that such activity might amount to
infringing use of the trademark if it gave rise to confusion on the part of
the average consumer as to the origin of the goods:
-- Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWCA 1403 (Civ)
(England, Court of Appeal, 5 November 2014)
Facts
Interflora, the plaintiff, operated a network for florists who did business both in
their own name and under the Interflora trademark. Customers would place
orders by the internet on Interflora’s website and the order would be fulfilled by
the nearest Interflora florist to the place where the flowers are to be delivered.
Marks & Spencer, a British retailer, provides an online flower delivery service
that is wholly unrelated to Interflora. It advertised its flowers online via the
Google Adwords service. In brief, advertising via Google Adwords causes
one’s advertisements (known as sponsored ads) to appear on the search
results page when the user searches for one or more particular keywords.
These keywords are secured by the advertiser in return for a fee, in a process
known as “bidding”.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
11
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
The search term entered by the user need not be identical for the sponsored
ads to appear. Depending on the terms of the agreement between the
advertiser and Google, the advertiser can choose to have the sponsored ads
appear if the Google search engine deems the word relevant to the search
term, or if the searched word is sufficiently close to or a variant of the keyword,
in a facility known as “advanced broad match”. Google Adwords also provided
a functionality known as “negative matching”, which allowed advertisers to
specify search terms in which their advertisements will not appear.
In 2008, Marks & Spencer bid for the keyword “interflora”, as well as a
number of close variants, a number of combinations of “interflora” with a
descriptive term, and Interflora’s domain names and URLs and variants of
them. It also chose to use the advanced broad match facility in relation to
those words. The result was that when a user searched one of the keywords
secured by Marks & Spencer, such as “Interflora”, a Marks & Spencer
advertisement for flowers would appear on the search page.
In addition, Marks & Spencer also bid for flower-related terms without using
negative matching for “interflora”. “Negative matching” allows advertisers to
specify search terms in which their advertisements will not appear.
Accordingly, when a customer searched for “interflora”, a Marks & Spencer
advertisement might appear because Marks & Spencer had bid for a related
term such as “flower delivery”.
Interflora brought an action against Marks & Spencer for the infringement of
both its Community and United Kingdom trademarks as a result of both of
these matters.
Decision
The English Court of Appeal first considered whether Marks & Spencer’s
bidding for the keyword “interflora” amounted to use of the trademark. It held
that it could. However, the use must also adversely affect one of the functions
of the trademark for infringement to be established.
This would be the case if the advertising displayed on the basis of that
keyword does not enable reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant
internet users, or enables them only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the
goods or services concerned by the advertisement originate from the
proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically linked to that
proprietor or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. This test is
qualitative, and not quantitative, and would be satisfied as long as a
significant section of the relevant class of consumers would be confused even
if the majority were not. If use of the trademark did not confuse the average
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
12
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
consumer as to the origin of the goods, and there was no impairment of any
other function of the trademark, then the use of the trademark by a competitor
for the purposes of online advertising through keywords would be permitted,
insofar as it promoted fair competition. The Court remitted the case back to
the trial judge for a retrial as the judge had wrongly placed the burden of proof
of confusion on the defendant and not the plaintiff.
The Court also considered whether Marks & Spencer had used Interflora’s
trademark by bidding for flower-related terms, without negatively matching
“interflora”, with the result that users searching for “interflora” might find
Marks & Spencer’s advertisements instead. It ruled that if a trader had
chosen a generic term with the object and effect of triggering the display of
his advertisement in response to a search by a consumer of a term including
or consisting of a sign which is the same as or similar to the trade mark of a
rival then it is possible to say that the trader had “used” the sign for the
purposes of finding trademark infringement. However, the Court cautioned
that this would not be sufficient in itself to establish infringement, as the
trademark proprietor would still need to show that the advertisements did not
enable the average consumer to ascertain whether the goods or services
referred to originated from it or the allegedly infringing user of the mark.
Our Comments / Analysis
European and English trademark law requires the trademark proprietor to
show that there is an adverse effect on the functions of a trademark even
where both the sign used and the goods or services in relation to which the
sign is used are identical. In order to show an adverse effect on the functions
of a trademark, in particular the function of indicating origin, there must be a
likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer.
In contrast, when dealing with such a case, Singapore law does not require
an adverse effect to be shown. Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act provides
that infringement can be found as long as a person “uses in the course of
trade a sign identical with the trademark, in relation to goods and services
which are identical with those for which the trademark is registered.” Hence, it
is not necessary to show any adverse effect on the function of the trademark,
and by extension, not necessary to show any likelihood of confusion.
Confusion is presumed for such cases of double identity. However, a
likelihood of confusion must be shown where either the sign, or the goods or
services supplied in relation to the sign are similar, but not identical, to those
of the trademark proprietor’s.
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
13
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
The Singapore position is not without its difficulties, and this is especially
evident when considering the question of whether bidding for trademarked
keywords and their variants, or even for related words without negatively
matching the trademarked signs, amounts to an infringement. The
Singapore courts have yet to consider whether bidding for a trademarked
keyword amounts to “[using] the sign in the course of trade”, and how the
Singapore courts will apply the current rubric of section 27 in this context
remains to be seen.
SOME OF OUR OTHER UPDATES
DATE
TITLE
18 December 2014
LawWatch: Issue 9 of 2014
26 November 2014
LawWatch: Issue 8 of 2014
20 November 2014
LawWatch: Financial Services Edition
13 November 2014
LegisWatch: Trade Reporting for FX Derivatives
Contracts to Commence on 1 May 2015
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).
LAWWATCH
14
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY EDITION
WONGPARTNERSHIP OFFICES
SINGAPORE
WongPartnership LLP
12 Marina Boulevard Level 28
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3
Singapore 018982
Tel: +65 6416 8000
Fax: +65 6532 5711/5722
CHINA
WongPartnership LLP
Beijing Representative Office
Unit 3111 China World Office 2
1 Jianguomenwai Avenue, Chaoyang District
Beijing 100004, PRC
Tel: +86 10 6505 6900
Fax: +86 10 6505 2562
WongPartnership LLP
Shanghai Representative Office
Unit 1015 Corporate Avenue 1
222 Hubin Road
Shanghai 200021, PRC
Tel: +86 21 6340 3131
Fax: +86 21 6340 3315
INDONESIA
Makes & Partners Law Firm (an associate firm)
Menara Batavia, 7th Floor
Jl. KH. Mas Mansyur Kav. 126
Jakarta 10220, Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 574 7181
Fax: +62 21 574 7180
Website: makeslaw.com
MALAYSIA
Foong & Partners (an associate firm)
Advocates & Solicitors
13-1, Menara 1MK, Kompleks 1 Mont’ Kiara
No 1 Jalan Kiara, Mont’ Kiara
50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 6419 0822
Fax: +60 3 6419 0823
Website: foongpartners.com
MIDDLE EAST
WongPartnership LLP
Abu Dhabi Branch
Al Bateen Towers, Building C3, Office 11-01 (P1)
P.O. Box No. 37883
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Tel: +971 2 651 0800
Fax: +971 2 635 9706
MYANMAR
WongPartnership Myanmar Ltd.
No. 1, Kaba Aye Pagoda Road
Business Suite #03-02, Yankin Township
Yangon, Myanmar
Tel: +95 1 544 061
Fax: +95 1 544 069
contactus@wongpartnership.com
wongpartnership.com
© WongPartnership LLP
This update is intended for your general information only.
It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as legal advice.
< Previous Item | Home | Next Item >
WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited
liability law partnership registered in Singapore under
the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A).