Subway versus Subway Niche (2012)
American sandwich company Subway sued local Peranakan snack chain Subway Niche for trademark infringement. It claimed that the similarity in trademarks and sale of sandwiches at Subway Niche would create public confusion.
The High Court found that, despite the visual similarity of the trademarks, there was no real evidence to prove that the public would confuse the two brands and cause damage to Subway's interests. The judge also noted that Subway Niche had started its business in 1987, whereas Subway only registered its trademark in 1989.
Nutella versus Nutello (2012)
Sarika Connoisseur Cafe, operator of the TCC café chain, introduced 'Nutello', a coffee drink with Nutella spread. Ferrero, Nutella's maker, sued Sarika for trademark infringement. Trademark ensures exclusive use of an identifying symbol.
The High Court ruled in Ferrero's favour, finding that Sarika's use of the Nutello sign would likely cause confusion to the public. Furthermore, Ferrero has a Nutella-based milk shake, and Sarika's Nutello sign would weaken the distinctiveness of the Nutella trademark over time. Sarika appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
Pedestrian, the Green Man and a Taxi (2016)
On 2 June 2011, Li Jian Tin was severely injured by taxi driver Asnah bte Ab Rahman, who ran a red light and hit him while he was crossing with a green signal. Asnah was convicted of dangerous driving. In Li's civil claim against Asnah, the latter argued Li was partly at fault for not checking traffic before crossing. The High Court disagreed.
The case reached the Court of Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that Asnah was primarily responsible, but Li could have avoided the accident by watching for traffic despite having the right of way. Li's damaged were thus reduced by 15%.
Fertility Treatment Mix-Up: Case of Baby P (2017)
A woman sued Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and two embryologists over a sperm mix-up during her in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Instead of her husband's sperm, a stranger's was used, leading to her giving birth to a daughter (Baby P).
She sought damages for raising Baby P. High Court denied the claim for raising costs. She appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling, noting a parent-child bond can't be subject to damage claims. Still, the court recognised that she was entitled to damages on a different basis — for the clinic's negligence in denying her kinship ties with her child.
First Virtual Currency Case (2019)
Cryptocurrency firm B2C2 Ltd sued Quoine for reversing seven Ethereum and Bitcoin transactions due to a software glitch that inflated the exchange rate by 250 times. B2C2 argued Quoine lacked the right to cancel completed trades. The Singapore International Commercial Court ruled in favour of B2C2, finding Quoine in breach of contract and trust.
This was Singapore's first virtual currency case, and one of the world's first to apply contract law to such currency. Quoine appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the breach of contract appeal but allowed the breach of trust appeal.
.jpeg?sfvrsn=e343f7a4_2)
.png?sfvrsn=a4e74fb6_0)
