Doctor's Associates Inc v Lim Eng Wah: Trademark Infringement & Passing Off Dispute
Doctor's Associates Inc, owner of the 'SUBWAY' trademark, sued Lim Eng Wah, who operates 'Subway niche' stalls, in the High Court of Singapore on 2012-04-18, for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the 'SUBWAY niche' sign infringed its registered 'SUBWAY' trademarks. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no infringement or passing off.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Doctor's Associates Inc sued Lim Eng Wah for trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'SUBWAY' trademark. The court dismissed the claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doctor's Associates Inc | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Eng Wah (trading as SUBWAY NICHE) | Defendant | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Doctor's Associates Inc. owns the 'SUBWAY' trademark and operates a sandwich chain.
- Lim Eng Wah operates 'Subway niche' stalls selling local snacks and sandwiches.
- Plaintiff registered the 'SUBWAY' mark in Singapore in various classes.
- Defendant used the 'SUBWAY NICHE' sign in relation to the sale of local snacks.
- Plaintiff alleged trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant.
- Defendant claimed prior use of the 'SUBWAY NICHE' mark before the plaintiff's registration.
- The defendant started selling sandwiches and nonya kueh prior to 25 May 1989.
5. Formal Citations
- Doctor’s Associates Inc v Lim Eng Wah (trading as SUBWAY NICHE), Originating Summons No 462 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff opened its first sandwich store under the name 'Pete’s Super Submarine'. | |
| Plaintiff amended its name to 'SUBWAY'. | |
| First franchised SUBWAY outlet opened in Connecticut. | |
| Defendant first applied the 'SUBWAY NICHE' sign. | |
| First SUBWAY outlet in Singapore opened. | |
| Plaintiff sent the defendant a 'cease and desist' letter. | |
| Plaintiff began legal proceedings. | |
| First action was struck off. | |
| Present action was started. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trademark Infringement
- Outcome: The court found no trademark infringement under s 27(2)(b) or s 27(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Similarity of marks
- Similarity of goods
- Likelihood of confusion
- Related Cases:
- [2006]
- [1996] RPC 281
- [2010] 1 SLR 382
- Case C-39/97 [1999] 1 CMLR 77
- [2007] EWHC 1557 (Ch)
- [2010] 2 SLR 459
- [2011] 1 SLR 830
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1071
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 629
- [2010] 4 SLR 552
- C-342/97, [1999] 2 CMLR 1343
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1082
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 177
- [2010] 1 SLR 512
- [2011] SGHC 176
- (1880) 13 Ch
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 577
- [2010] SGHC 228
- Passing Off
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had not acquired the necessary goodwill in the 'SUBWAY' mark and dismissed the passing off claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1990] 1 WLR 491
- [1896] AC 199
- [1993] FSR 641
- [1998] 4 ALL ER 476
- [1997] FSR 877
- [2009] 3 SLR 216
- [996] RPC 473
- [1996] RPC 697
- [1976] RPC 197
- (1899) 16 RPC 209
- [1998] 2 SLR 550
- [1998] SGCA 23
- [1992] 3 SLR(R) 365
- (1992) 33 FCR 302
- (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 90
- [1957] RPC 388
- [1980] RPC 343
- [1984] FSR 413
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the SUBWAY mark is well known in Singapore
- Injunction to restrain the use of the offending mark
- Delivery up of all infringing material
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Trademark Infringement
- Passing Off
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Trademark Infringement
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
- Restaurant
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Polo/Lauren Co. LP v Shop in Department Store Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] | Singapore | Cited for the three-step approach to determine trademark infringement under s 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. |
| British Sugar plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1996] RPC 281 | N/A | Cited for the three-step approach to determine trademark infringement under s 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. |
| City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton Malletier | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited regarding the distinct requirements for trademark infringement and the type of confusion required. |
| Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | European Court of Justice | Yes | Case C-39/97 [1999] 1 CMLR 77 | N/A | Cited regarding the interdependence of the requirements for trademark infringement. |
| Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance PLC | N/A | Yes | [2007] EWHC 1557 (Ch) | N/A | Cited regarding the interdependence of the requirements for trademark infringement. |
| Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 459 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step approach in analyzing the similarity of marks. |
| RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 830 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consideration of marks 'as a whole' and the exclusion of external circumstances. |
| Nautical Concept Pte Ltd v Jeffery Mark Richard | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1071 | Singapore | Cited regarding the 'imperfect recollection' of the customer when considering visual similarity. |
| Future Enterprises Pte Ltd v McDonald’s Corp | N/A | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 629 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consideration of 'imperfect recollection' and 'careless pronunciation' when considering aural similarity. |
| Festina Lotus SA v Romanson Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 552 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consideration of the ideas behind a mark when considering conceptual similarity. |
| Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel | European Court of Justice | Yes | C-342/97, [1999] 2 CMLR 1343 | N/A | Cited regarding the factors to be considered in determining the distinctiveness of a mark. |
| Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1082 | Singapore | Cited regarding the guidelines for assessing whether goods are similar. |
| McDonald’s Corp v Future Enterprises Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 177 | Singapore | Cited regarding the characteristics of the average consumer. |
| Mobil Petroleum Co Inc v Hyundai Mobis | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 512 | Singapore | Cited regarding the meaning of 'substantial portion' of the relevant public. |
| Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 176 | Singapore | Cited regarding the procedure and format of registration under the Act. |
| R Johnston & Co v Archibald Orr Ewing & Co | N/A | Yes | (1880) 13 Ch | N/A | Cited as an example of marks sharing prominent words or features where courts concluded that there was infringement. |
| Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 577 | Singapore | Cited regarding the applicability of the 'first syllable' principle. |
| Tung Chay Seng v Tung Yang Wee | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 228 | Singapore | Cited regarding the quantitative assessment of marks. |
| Phillips – Van Heusen | N/A | Yes | [2003] ECR II – 4335 | N/A | Cited as an example of conceptual dissimilarity. |
| Itochu Corporation v Worldwide Brands, Inc | N/A | Yes | [2007] SGIPOS 9 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the difference that the addition of a single word may make. |
| Bee Cheng Hiang Hup Chong Foodstuff Pte Ltd v Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 305 | Singapore | Cited regarding 'honest practices in industrial or commercial matters'. |
| L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV | N/A | Yes | [2010] EWCA | N/A | Cited regarding the 'free-riding' type of damage. |
| Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (No.3) | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 WLR 491 | N/A | Cited for the classic 'trinity' formulation of passing off. |
| Reddaway v Banham | N/A | Yes | [1896] AC 199 | N/A | Cited regarding the requirement to show that a mark has become 'distinctive in fact' or taken on a 'secondary meaning'. |
| Taittinger SA v Allbev | N/A | Yes | [1993] FSR 641 | N/A | Cited regarding the form of misrepresentation in passing off. |
| British Telecommunications v One in a Million | N/A | Yes | [1998] 4 ALL ER 476 | N/A | Cited regarding the form of misrepresentation in passing off. |
| Kimberley Clark v Fort Sterling | N/A | Yes | [1997] FSR 877 | N/A | Cited regarding the form of misrepresentation in passing off. |
| Amanresorts | N/A | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inference of a likelihood of confusion from the surrounding facts. |
| Neutrogena Corporation v Golden | N/A | Yes | [996] RPC 473 | N/A | Cited regarding the meaning of 'substantial part of the public'. |
| Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1996] RPC 697 | N/A | Cited regarding the description of the 'public'. |
| General Tire and Rubber Co Ltd v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1976] RPC 197 | N/A | Cited regarding the object of damages. |
| Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Puncture Proof Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1899) 16 RPC 209 | N/A | Cited regarding the object of damages. |
| CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 550 | Singapore | Cited regarding dilution to goodwill as a form of damage. |
| CDL Hotels International Ltd v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] SGCA 23 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevant period that the court had to have regard to when assessing whether the plaintiff had accumulated the requisite goodwill in the SUBWAY mark. |
| Mechanical Handling Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Material Handling Engineering Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Cited regarding the 'hard line' stance. |
| Conagra Inc v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1992) 33 FCR 302 | Australia | Cited regarding the softer approach. |
| Orkin Exterminating Co Inc v Pestco Co of Canada Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 90 | Canada | Cited regarding the softer approach. |
| Oertli AG v Bowman (London) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1957] RPC 388 | N/A | Cited regarding the requirement of passing off. |
| Athletes Foot Marketing Associates v Cobra Sports Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1980] RPC 343 | N/A | Cited regarding the presence of customers in the country. |
| Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik | N/A | Yes | [1984] FSR 413 | N/A | Cited regarding the presence of customers in the country. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trademark Infringement
- Passing Off
- Goodwill
- Likelihood of Confusion
- Prior Use
- SUBWAY
- SUBWAY NICHE
- Distinctiveness
- Average Consumer
- Trade Mark
- Sign
15.2 Keywords
- trademark
- infringement
- passing off
- subway
- niche
- singapore
- intellectual property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trademarks | 90 |
| Passing Off | 90 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Intellectual Property
- Trademark Law
- Commercial Law