Safeguard & manage your brands


Carve out a Monopoly for your Intellectual Creations


Deal with infringements

Our IP practice has more than 23 years’ experience of delivering trademark, design and patent protection and prosecution services. We also litigate before the IP Office of Singapore in opposition and revocation actions. 

Our clients’ intellectual property and business interests are always at the heart of the advice we give.  

With strong experience in the fast-growing and dynamic Asia-Pacific market, we are able to offer expertise across a diverse range of technologies and industry sectors. 

Trademarks & Geographical Indications

  • Trademark prosecution 
  • Brand protection strategies
  • Trademark dispute resolution
  • Trademark clearance searches
  • Trademark opposition and revocation proceedings
  • Registration and protection of Geographical Indications

Patents & Registered Designs

  • Patent drafting
  • Patent prosecution services
  • Registered designs

Copyright Protection


  • Copyright protection and enforcement

Intellectual Property  Disputes

  • Enforcement against counterfeiting activities
  • Trademark & copyright infringement 
  • Domain name disputes and online infringements

Intellectual Property Transactions

  • Franchising agreements
  • Licensing agreements
  • Assignments
  • Technology transfer agreements



Our firm represented FMTM Distribution Limited (the Franck Muller Group) and successfully revoked Van Cleef & Arpel’s MYSTERY SET trademark registration in respect of watches, in a revocation action that went to a full hearing on 2 March 2017.

What is notable about the decision is that IPOS appears to have set a relatively low bar for what registered trademark proprietors must show in terms of use, in order to defend against a revocation action on the basis of 5 years’ non-use.

Although there were no photographs from Van Cleef & Arpel’s website nor other brochures or marketing collaterals showing the actual use or application of MYSTERY SET as a trade mark in connection with jewellery or on product packagings, IPOS did not draw any adverse inference from this and held that there was no strict need to adduce such evidence.

Van Cleef & Arpel’s evidence comprising only four invoices, each for single items, over a period of 4 years (two of which were to Indonesian buyers, one to a Singapore buyer and the fourth to an unknown buyer) was held to be sufficient to show genuine use in the course of trade in Singapore.

Reading the decision, in particular the section thereof which reads

“Taking the relevant characteristics of the products or services on the relevant market into account, I am of the view that quantity as well as turnover of the relevant products constitute genuine use of the Subject Mark. In this regard, I agree with the Proprietors that the relevant goods are luxury items and as such have a smaller consumer base which justifies the low volume, high value transactions on an annual basis”,

it is clear that for luxury brands, a few sales transactions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars are counted as more “weighty” in effect.

The full decision [2017] SGIPOS 6 can be found at

Other reports on the case can be found at



The Scotch Whisky Association has failed in its opposition against an application by Isetan Mitsukoshi for the mark ISETAN TARTAN which was filed in respect of sake and other alcoholic beverages, not including beer. One of the grounds of opposition was based on Section 7(7) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap.332) which states that “a trade mark shall not be registered if it contains of consists of a geographical indication in respect of a wine or spirit and the trade mark is used or intended to be used in relation to a wine or spirit not originating from the place indicated in the geographical indication”.

A geographical indication (“GI”) is defined in the Singapore Geographical Indications Act (Cap. 117B) as any ”indication used in trade to identify goods as originating from a place, provided that the place is a qualifying country or region or locality in the qualifying country” and “a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to that place”.

The Tribunal of the IP Office of Singapore rejected the opponent’s arguments that “tartan”, being an iconic symbol of Scotland, can function as a GI and that Scotch Whisky producers frequently incorporate the tartan pattern on their labels or the word “Tartan” in their brand names. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to show that “Tartan” is used to identify goods, and neither was there evidence from the opponent as to what characteristics “Tartan” whiskies possess.

The opponent also failed on the alternative ground, that the mark is “of such a nature as to deceive the public (for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service)” (Section 7(4)(b)). The Tribunal held that the opponent’s argument that the ISETAN TARTAN mark is strongly evocative of Scotland and would thereby deceive the public was misconstrued; it pointed out that “the issue is not whether the Application Mark does or does not evoke Scotland. Section 7(4)(b) does not prohibit evocation per se. The issue is whether the Application Mark is of such a nature as to deceive the public”.

The full decision [2019] SGIPOS 4 can be found at


(Case Note: March 2019)


Under Section 22(7), a successful revocation of a mark takes effect either from the date of the revocation application or earlier if the court is satisfied that there are grounds for the revocation to be effective at a date before the revocation application was filed.

Section 15(2) provides that where an application for registration of a mark is granted, the mark is deemed to be registered as of the date of the application for registration, viz. the effective date of registration would “relate back” to the date of the trademark application. The Court of Appeal noted that the effect of these two provisions is that “if the date of application for registration of a later mark occurs before the date of application for revocation or an earlier mark, on a successful registration of the later mark and revocation of the earlier mark, there would be two identical or almost similar marks on the register at the same time at some point”. It added that therefore, one of the objects of enacting Section 22(7)(b) must have been to address this precise problem.

The Court of Appeal accepted the Appellant’s argument that the fact remained that the 1986 Mark had remained on the register until 21 January 2002 and was only effectively removed after the effective registration date of the Respondent’s 2001 Mark (20 November 2001). The Court of Appeal held that allowing the registration of the Respondent’s 2001 Mark would be contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the PAR should not have disregarded the fact that the registration of the Respondent’s 2001 Mark would have given rise to there being on the register two identical marks being owned by two different proprietors for a period of time (i.e. between 20 November 2001 and 21 January 2002). The remedy for this problem could have been resolved in this case by resorting to Section 22(7)(b) of the Act. In considering this issue, the Court of Appeal found guidance from the case of Riviera Trade Mark [2003] RPC 50, in particular the remarks of Mr Allan James of the UK Trade Marks Registry to the effect that an earlier mark must be revoked effective from a date which preceded the date of application for registration of a later conflicting mark before the later mark could be validly registered. However, this was not done in this case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Concluding remarks

This case has therefore clarified that the relevant point in time for considering the issue of whether there is an “earlier trade mark” is on the date of the hearing of the opposition or the date when the mark is to be entered on the register, as the case may be. It has also highlighted the importance for those seeking revocation of a conflicting earlier mark to ensure that the revocation takes effect from the date on which the earlier trade mark is deemed to have been registered.

(Case Note: March 2011)


Our firm successfully defended our Japanese client against a revocation action filed by a German company against our client’s flagship brand, which is registered in Singapore for clothing and other fashion items and apparel. Although some of the items in the specification of goods were removed from the trademark registration as a result of the revocation application, the main bulk of the items of importance to our client remained intact.

We obtained a favourable decision wherein the Assistant Registrar found that the totality of evidence submitted by the registrant “pointed towards an effort to launch both women’s and men’s clothing (and related items) bearing the Subject Mark in Singapore. It appeared to be a sequential process involving first bringing in limited quantities in established department stores to generate interest through sales events, before finally setting up a permanent location. The facts did not fit [the German applicant's] theory that the Registrant was simply trying to sell a few items here and there in order to (pre-emptively) defeat an action for non-use revocation.”

The Assistant Registrar also found that the German applicant’s private investigators’ evidence “even at its highest … did not have the effect of addressing, let alone negating, the Registrant’s evidence of use. As a whole, I found the Applicant’s PI evidence to have been of limited value to the overarching question: Had the Subject Mark been put to genuine use in relation to the goods for which it was registered, within the relevant time periods, so that the registration ought not be revoked under the first or second subsections of Section 22(1) TMA?”

The  Assistant Registrar also rejected the German applicant’s bid to obtain a backdating of the revocation order to apply to a period within the 5-year grace period of use. The Assistant Registrar held that there was no legal foundation for such a request since there can be no grounds for revocation during the 5-year grace period.

See the full decision at [2017] SGIPOS 16:

Our Services

Contact Us

  • Trademark prosecution
  • Brand protection strategies
  • Trademark dispute resolution
  • Trademark clearance searches
  • Patent drafting and prosecution
  • Registered designs
  • Domain name disputes & online infringements
  • Enforcement and anti-counterfeiting
  • Trademark opposition and revocation proceedings
  • Franchising & licensing agreements

Francine Tan  Law Corporation 

Address: 111 Somerset Road
#09-14/15 TripleOne Somerset
Singapore 238164

Telephone:  +65 3159 4208

Email: [email protected]


Call Now ButtonCall Now