Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Law in Singapore

Running head: FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN
SINGAPORE
FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE
1
Issue:
 Whether Charles is liable for trademark infringement for his MagicMacaroner
machine under the Trademark Act of Singapore?
 Whether Charles can be held liable for infringement for a patent under the Patent Act
of Singapore?
 Are remedies available to R&P Pte Ltd for infringement of intellectual property rights
against Charles under the Intellectual Property Law of the country?
 What is the risk that John needs to check before acquiring the business of R&P Pte
Ltd?
 What option for investment would have been preferable for John for investing in an IP
registered business?
Rules:
In this case, provisions of the Trademark Act, 1998 regarding the protection of
business and provisions of the Patent Act, 1994 for the protection of invention is argued.
However reference of the Copyright Act, 1987 has been further discussed relating to
problems associated with this case.
Analysis:
Analysis for question no. 1:
In this case, Charles launched a macaroni machine to compete with the business of
R&P Pte Ltd. He took the idea for his business name from R&P Pte Ltd’s MacaronMagician
and named his machine as MagicMacaroner. Charles can be held liable for trademark
infringement under the Trademark Act 1998, as the name of his machine is identical to the
machine of R&P Pte Ltd, which constitutes a valid ground for infringement under section 27

FUNDAMENTALS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE
2
of the Trademark Act, 1998. As per section 27 of the Act, a person is said to have infringed a
registered trademark if the sign used by him or her, is similar or identical to an already
registered trademark that is in business (Wee, 2017). Furthermore, the infringed person must
have used the sign without the permission of the original owner (Ford, 2018). Charles can be
further held liable under section 27 as his machine’s name is almost similar to the name of
R&P Pte Ltd the macaroni machine and that might create confusion between the customers
and for such reason MacaronMagician which is invented by R&P Pte Ltd might lose some of
his trusted customers. Further, Charles can also be held further guilty for partially copying the
name of MacaronMagician and using it to a similar business of his that is creating a machine
for making macaroni. In the case of Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v.
GoDaddy.com , it was alleged by Academy Awards that, Godaddy by posting similar name
domains in their website allowing profit for them and for those individuals who want to earn
illegal revenue. The court held that Godaddy did not act in bad faith to earn profit from the
sale. As per the facts of the case, it is further clear that, though kneading clamp used by
Charles is different from that of Ravi’s machine but few of the concepts are similar to that of
Ravi. Therefore, he can be held liable for Infringement under section 27(3) and 27(4) of the
Trademark Act, (Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others, 2016).
Furthermore, Charles can be held liable under section 66 of the Patent Act, 1994 for making
of the macaroni machine similar to that of R&P Pte Ltd ‘s machine. Furthermore, he used it
for commercial purpose or earning profits which amount to infringement under section 66(2)
of the Patent Act, 1994 (Low, 2018). In this case, Charles also published a recipe book
containing different recipes of macaroni around the world, the concept of which is similar to
the coffee table book named Macarons Around the World published by R&P Pte Ltd.
However, from the fact, it is not clear whether the contents of the book of Charles is similar
to that of R&P’S book. Therefore, upon proof of the same, Charles can be held liable for