Singtel, the biggest telco in Singapore, have been marketing and packaging their telecommunications and TV services under the mark mio since 2007. However, a Taiwanese party, Mitac, had registered a stylised version of the mark at the Singapore Registry earlier. Mio mean "my" in Italian. Mitac sued Singtel for infringement; the case is Mitac International Corporation v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd [2009] SGHC 137.
The Singapore High Court found that there was no infringement and held the following:
1. Mitac stylised mio was not identical to the Singtel mark notwithstanding that phonetically the marks are identical. In this regard, the court placed great weight on the fact that the Mitac mark was "highly stylised and distinctive." In the circumstances, it might be wise for proprietors of trademarks to register the block version of the mark rather than the mark as used otherwise they will face the same issues as Mitac did in this case. The problem, however, is where the block letter version cannot obtain registration for some reason or other.
2. If the court finds that the marks are identical, then there is no need to show a likelihood of confusion. However, where the court as in this case holds that the marks are not identical, then Mitac was weighed with the burden to show that there was a likelihood of confusion. In this regard and on the authority of the Polo case [2006] 2 SLR 690, an inquiry into the marketplace is relevant.
3. The court felt that there was no likelihood of confusion agreeing with the several reasons put forward by Singtel. The court went on to say that: "The marketing expenditure of and number of events [Mitac] participated in paled in comparison to [Singtel's], leading to the conclusion that it was unlikely that an average customer would think of [Mitac] at all when confronted with [Singtel's] trade marks."
4. If it is true that market power can affect the statutory rights afforded under the Trade Marks Act, then we are backing into the tort of passing off. In this case, the pervasiveness of Singtel in Singapore trumped Mitac's prior registration and weak marketing. One wonders what rights would be given to a mark which has not been used at all.
The Singapore High Court found that there was no infringement and held the following:
1. Mitac stylised mio was not identical to the Singtel mark notwithstanding that phonetically the marks are identical. In this regard, the court placed great weight on the fact that the Mitac mark was "highly stylised and distinctive." In the circumstances, it might be wise for proprietors of trademarks to register the block version of the mark rather than the mark as used otherwise they will face the same issues as Mitac did in this case. The problem, however, is where the block letter version cannot obtain registration for some reason or other.
2. If the court finds that the marks are identical, then there is no need to show a likelihood of confusion. However, where the court as in this case holds that the marks are not identical, then Mitac was weighed with the burden to show that there was a likelihood of confusion. In this regard and on the authority of the Polo case [2006] 2 SLR 690, an inquiry into the marketplace is relevant.
3. The court felt that there was no likelihood of confusion agreeing with the several reasons put forward by Singtel. The court went on to say that: "The marketing expenditure of and number of events [Mitac] participated in paled in comparison to [Singtel's], leading to the conclusion that it was unlikely that an average customer would think of [Mitac] at all when confronted with [Singtel's] trade marks."
4. If it is true that market power can affect the statutory rights afforded under the Trade Marks Act, then we are backing into the tort of passing off. In this case, the pervasiveness of Singtel in Singapore trumped Mitac's prior registration and weak marketing. One wonders what rights would be given to a mark which has not been used at all.
Citation : Mitac International Corp v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd and Another Action[2009] SGHC 137
Posts
2 comments:
And of course the fact that SingTel is a Singapore company and Mitac is Taiwanese had nothing to do with it at all...
Post a Comment