Singapore: Leonid Kovalkov v. JNBK Group Private Limited [2022] SGIPOS MED 1 demonstrates value of mediation of disputes before Intellectual Property Office of Singapore

In brief

The parties in the mediation Leonid Kovalkov v. JNBK Group Private Limited [2022] SGIPOS MED 1 had been embroiled in several disputes before the Intellectual Property of Singapore (IPOS) since 2012, including several that proceeded to full hearings and resulted in three full grounds of decision.

There were two further proceedings between the parties that they chose to submit to mediation. While the parties were unable to conclude a mediation settlement agreement, the proceedings that were the subject of the mediation were withdrawn.

This could be seen as a win-win for both parties, particularly given their acrimonious history. The case showcases the value of mediation even when no final settlement agreement is reached.


Key takeaways

  • The parties are in the business of dealing with motor vehicle spare parts. They were originally business partners but the relationship deteriorated. They were then involved in various disputes before the IPOS, spanning some eight years. The latest disputes arose from two applications brought by Leonid Kovalkov: one to invalidate a trade mark registered by JNBK Group Private Limited on the basis that it should not have been registered as a trade mark; and the other to revoke another trade mark registered by JNBK Group Private Limited on the basis of non-use.
  • In the course of the proceedings, the registrar broached the option of mediation to resolve the dispute. The parties agreed to submit the dispute to mediation under the auspices of the Singapore Mediation Centre.
  • While the parties were unable to reach a settlement agreement, the two proceedings before IPOS were ultimately withdrawn. This meant that after close to 10 years, no pending disputes between the parties exist now.
  • Parties that have a dispute before the IPOS have consistently been encouraged to amicably resolve their dispute. The IPOS has implemented various schemes to encourage parties to choose mediation as an alternative to a hearing. For example, under the Mediation Promotion Scheme, parties in a mediation case can receive funding of up to SGD 10,000, or up to SGD 12,000 if foreign IP rights are added to the subject matter of mediation, regardless of the mediation outcome.
  • Many disputes before the IPOS have been successfully resolved via mediation. This includes the first successful multijurisdictional IP mediation involving a law student under IPOS's Young IP Mediator initiative, which was led by Baker McKenzie's Andy Leck, a mediator with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
  • As demonstrated by this featured case, there can also be great value in mediation even for disputes where no final settlement agreement is reached.



© 2022 Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.