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
Courts (Singapore) v. Big Box Corporation
Issued: May 12 2017
In early 2015, the Proprietor sent furniture giant, Courts, a warning letter, stating that Courts was infringing their registered mark by advertising their Tampines store as “COURTS BIG BOX MEGASTORE”. Courts subsequently applied in March 2015 for a removal of the “BIG BOX” trade mark, claiming that it was generic and describes the retail warehouse concept, instead of the unique services provided by the Proprietor. IP adjudicator, Mr David Llewelyn, found that from the perspective of an average consumer in Singapore, "BIG BOX" would not have been viewed as descriptive, generic or devoid of distinctive character as an indication of the trade origin of the retail services for which it was registered. Hence, the application by Courts for the “BIG BOX” trade mark to be removed was refused. The case was decided upon at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore.
This case highlighted the significance of an average consumer’s perception of certain terms that are used in arriving at a legal decision. In this particular case, while the term “big box” has become descriptive of a large retail or warehouse establishment in areas such as America, the term has not taken on such a meaning in Singapore. Hence, Courts was unsuccessful in its efforts to remove the “BIG BOX” trade mark.
Related Articles
- Tax Credit to Give Businesses Incentive ...
- The Perfect Line
Parallel imports are a huge issue for brands. Johnny Chan asks lawyers from Asia’s main manufacturing jurisdictions about how they moni...
- 48 Firms Take Home Trophies at the 2019 ...
Forty-eight firms from 19 Asia-Pacific jurisdictions took home trophies at the 10th annual Asia IP Awards, held November 8 at the Shang...
- Norton Rose Fulbright Appoints David Old...
- IP Week @ SG launches in Singapore
- 3D Revolution
With the rise of 3D printing, copyright, patents and trademarks are all at stake. Lawyers across jurisdictions share with Johnny Chan a...
Law Firms
Most Read Articles
Magazine Issues
Tags
Baker & McKenzie USPTO WIPO DLA Piper Tilleke & Gibbins Anand and Anand TRIPS Delhi High Court Rouse IPOS Remfry & Sagar Hogan Lovells WTO PCT SIPO Spruson & Ferguson KIPO Bird & Bird Lex Orbis EPO Lall Lahiri & Salhotra Krishna & Saurastri Anaqua INTA IPAB JPO Davies Collison Cave patrick mirandah co King & Wood Mallesons AJ Park Kim & Chang Indian Patent Office Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Shearn Delamore & Co Deacons Madrid Protocol Tay & Partners Chang Tsi & Partners Pinsent Masons LLS Lee & Ko Khaitan & Co Blake Dawson USTR K&L Gates Drew & Napier TIPO Allen & Gledhill Griffith Hack Lee and Li