Novelty Pte Ltd V Amanresorts Ltd and Another [2009] SGCA 13

Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd and Another [2009] SGCA 13 Case Number : CA 56/2007 Decision Date : 31 March 2009 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Tan Tee Jim SC, Christopher de Souza and Lim Ke Xiu (Lee & Lee) for the appellant; Alban Kang, Koh Chia Ling and Ang Kai Hsiang (Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP) for the respondents Parties : Novelty Pte Ltd — Amanresorts Ltd; Amanresorts International Pte Ltd Tort – Passing off – Damage – Different heads of damage – Blurring/tarnishment – Loss of licensing opportunity – Restriction on expansion – Loss of exclusivity and erosion of distinctiveness – Dilution of goodwill Tort – Passing off – Goodwill – Misrepresentation – Damage to goodwill – Housing developer using same name as Balinese resort run by company known for its luxury resorts under the name "Aman" – Whether "Aman" names had goodwill in Singapore – Whether there was misrepresentation to relevant sector of public – Whether misrepresentation resulted in damage to company's goodwill Tort – Passing off – Goodwill – Relevance of internet presence in determining goodwill – Use of trademark – Internet's power of exposure only potential – Existence of domain names and websites alone would ordinarily be insufficient to establish goodwill Trade Marks and Trade Names – Passing off – Difference in test for damage as between misrepresentation for passing off and s 55(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) – "Interests" and "goodwill" Trade Marks and Trade Names – Well-known trade mark – What was a well-known trade mark – Distinction between trade mark "well known in Singapore" and "well known to the public at large in Singapore" – Section 2(1) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) Trade Marks and Trade Names – Well-known trade mark – Whether "Aman" names were well-known trade marks in Singapore – Whether "relevant sector of the public in Singapore" referred to actual consumers and potential consumers in Singapore of the type of goods or services which the plaintiff's trade mark was applied – Whether likelihood of confusion had to be proven under s 55(3) (a) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) – Sections 2 and 55(3)(a) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) 31 March 2009 Judgment reserved. V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 Should a modest cluster housing project in Yio Chu Kang be allowed to share the same name as an ultra-exclusive luxury resort in Bali where that name is not a registered trade mark in Singapore? In the present appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Amanresorts Limited v Novelty Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR 32 (“the Judgment”), we were asked to consider this question from two angles: first, at common law under the tort of passing off, and, second, under s 55 of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) (“the current TMA”), which provides for the protection of well-known trade marks. To facilitate the reading of this judgment, we set out below the outline of its contents: Introduction................................................................................................... 1 The 3 facts........................................................................................................ The respondents................................................................................... 3 The Respondents’ resort business................................................ 4 The Respondents’ residential accommodation business................. 6 Other products and services offered by the Respondents.............. 8 The Respondents’ marketing-cum-publicity efforts and the exposure received........................................................................ 8 The Respondents’ trade marks.................................................... 11 The appellant........................................................................................ 12 The dispute between the parties............................................................. 15 The decision in the court below........................................................................ 18 The passing off claim....................................................................................... 19 Goodwill............................................................................................... 20 The nature of goodwill................................................................. 21 Whether goodwill exists in the “Aman” names............................... 21 (1) The specific sector of the public to be considered.................... 22 (2) Whether the “Aman” names have an attractive force for custom among the relevant sector of the public.............................. 32 (3) The type of business in respect of which goodwill in the “Aman” names exists.................................................................... 35 (4) Our conclusion on the extent of the goodwill attached to the “Aman” names............................................................................ 36 The “foreign business problem”.................................................... 36 Misrepresentation.................................................................................. 37 The misrepresentation in the present case...................................... 38 (1) The content of the misrepresentation........................................ 38 (2) The target audience of the misrepresentation............................ 38 (3) Whether the misrepresentation resulted in confusion................. 41 Damage................................................................................................. 48 Analysis of the heads of damage claimed by the Respondents........ 49 (1) Inferiority of the Appellant’s residential accommodation........... 49 (2) Likelihood of damage should the Appellant get into financial, legal or other trouble.................................................................... 51 (3) Loss of licensing opportunity or licensing income, and misappropriation of goodwill and reputation.................................. 54 (4) Restriction on the Respondents’ expansion into the residential real estate business....................................................................... 58 (5) Loss of exclusivity and erosion of the distinctiveness of the “Aman” names as well as dilution of the goodwill attached to these names................................................................................. 61 Our conclusion on the passing off claim.................................................. 66 The claim under section 55 of the current TMA: Infringement of a well-known trade 67 mark...................................................................................................... What is a “well known trade mark”?...................................................... 67 The protection afforded by section 55(3)(a) of the current TMA............. 79 The meaning of “use … in the course of trade … of any trade mark” in section 55(3).................................................................. 79 The meaning of “would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the proprietor” in section 55(3)(a)............... 81 (1) International developments..................................................... 84 (2) The US law of dilution............................................................ 90 (3) The EU Directive.................................................................... 96 (4) The Joint Recommendation..................................................... 102 (5) The current TMA................................................................... 109 (6) The position in Australia......................................................... 119 (7) Our view on whether confusion is required under section 55(3)(a) of the current TMA............................................ 122 Our decision on the Respondents’ claim for trade mark infringement........ 122 Conclusion......................................................................................................123 The facts The respondents 2 The first respondent, Amanresorts Ltd (“the First Respondent”), was incorporated in Hong Kong in 1981 while the second respondent, Amanresorts International Pte Ltd (“the Second Respondent”), was incorporated in Singapore in 1999. The First Respondent and the Second Respondent (referred to collectively as “the Respondents”) operate under the umbrella of the Amanresorts group of companies (“the Amanresorts Group”), which comprises over 80 companies, all of which are either wholly or partially-owned subsidiaries of Silverlink Holdings Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The Amanresorts Group was founded in the mid-1980s by Adrian Zecha, a Javanese-born Dutch national and businessman. The Respondents’ resort business 3 According to the Respondents’ main witness, Mr Gregory Sirois (“Mr Sirois”), a director of the Respondents:[note: 1] The Amanresorts Group’s vision was the creation of a string of exclusive, ultra-luxury [sic] boutique resorts situated at beautiful locations around the world, with the emphasis on providing impeccable service and privacy. 4 The first of the Respondents’ resorts was Amanpuri, which opened in Phuket, Thailand, in 1988. Since then, the Respondents have developed a string of 15 other resorts across the world, all with the prefix “Aman” in their names, namely: Amandari, Amankila, Amanusa, Amanwana, Amanpulo, Amanjiwo, Amangani, Amanjena,

Load more