Sectors
Jurisdictions
- Australia
- Brunei
- Cambodia
- China
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Laos
- Macau
- Malaysia
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- East Timor
- Bangladesh
- Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan
- Tajikistan
- Egypt
- Cyprus
- Iran
- Israel
- Lebanon
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Jordan
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- UAE
- Turkey
- Pacific Islands
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Canada
- USA
- Latin America
- Africa
Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Case Summary: FMTM DISTRIBUTION LIMITED v VAN CLEEF & ARPELS S.A. [2017] SGIPOS 6
Issued: June 26 2017The Applicants are FMTM Distribution Limited and they own amongst others, the “Franck Muller” trademark for watches.
The Proprietors are a supplier of fine jewellery and luxury watches sold under the Van Cleefs & Arpels (VCA) trademark. Established in France in 1896, VCA and their predecessors in title have been trading for over 100 years. The Proprietors’ evidence deposed that Richmont Luxury (S) Pte Ltd is the exclusive retailer and distributor of luxury goods manufactured by Richmont Group which owns several of the world’s leading brands in the field of luxury goods including jewellery, luxury watches and writing instruments. The Richmont Group’s brands includes IWC, Van Cleef & Arpels, Piaget, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Alfred Dunhill and MontBlanc, to name a few.
The mark in issue is:
Registered Mark | Goods |
MYSTERY SET |
“jewellery, watches” |
T0801770E |
The Applicants claimed that the mark has not been put to genuine use in the course of trade in Singapore by the proprietor, in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, within the period of 5 years following the date of completion of the registration procedure under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act.
One of the Applicants’ main lines of attack is that MYSTERY SET has been used by third parties and the Proprietors themselves, to describe a particular jewellery setting technique where gem stones are set in such a way that no prongs are visible.
However, in light of the evidence tendered, the Registrar is of the view that MYSTERY SET is not directly descriptive of the technique. Rather it alludes to the mysterious aura which is exuded by gemstones in such a setting and thus can be considered to be allusive of jewellery. The technical name of the specific technique described above is invisible setting MYSTERY SET while has been conceived by the Proprietors to describe a variant of the technique which has been patented by them.
Therefore, the revocation failed in relation to jewellery (although the revocation partially succeeded in relation to watches as there was no evidence tendered in relation to this item).
Related Articles
- Hard Candy Sues Madonna Over Trademark I...
- Meeting the President
During the recent annual meeting of the International Trademark Association in Hong Kong, Johnny Chan caught up with INTA president Mei...
- Toasting the Winners
In October, Asia IP honoured the top trademarks, patents and copyright practices in Asia at the seventh Asia IP awards. Simon Lee catch...
- FB Rice Has Appointed Jim Watson As Chai...
- Product Strange
Finished products and raw materials alike can flow out of poorly-managed supply chains and sold in other countries as parallel imports,...
- The 2010 Asia IP Trademark Survey
Over the past several months, Asia IP polled thousands of in-house counsel and private practitioners in order to find the best trademar...