Singapore: Successful invalidation action by Shenzhen Meixixi Catering Management Co., Ltd against Heetea Pte. Ltd.

In brief

The Chinese company Shenzhen Meixixi Catering Management Co., Ltd ("Applicant") filed an invalidation action against the trade mark registration for ' ' in Class 30 ("Registered Mark") owned by Singapore company Heetea Pte. Ltd. ("Proprietor").

The Applicant succeeded on two out of the four grounds of invalidation relied upon, as discussed in more detail below.


In more detail

The Applicant relied on four grounds of invalidation as follows: 

  1. Earlier registered rights for its ' ' mark in Class 43, which is identical to the Registered Mark. Therefore, there exists a likelihood of confusion on part of the public
  2. Bad faith
  3. Earlier registered rights for its ' ' mark, which is a well-known mark
  4. Passing off and copyright infringement

The Applicant succeeded on grounds (1) and (2).

In summary, the Registrar held that the marks were overall identical, or at the very least highly similar, and that there is a close relationship/similarity between the goods and services. In this regard, the Registrar is satisfied that there is a likelihood of confusion.

In finding that ground (2) has been satisfied, the Registrar took into account the following:

  • The identity or high similarity between the marks and the "uncanny resemblance" between the Proprietor's getup and the Applicant's copyright work as shown below, which may assist in determining the Proprietor's state of mind on the registration date of its mark.
Applicant's copyright work Proprietor's getup


  • The sequence of events in the Proprietor's explanation strongly suggests that the Proprietor registered its mark in bad faith to simply hold the Applicant ransom or disrupt the Applicant's business.
  • The "uncanny resemblance" in the references made in the Applicant's and Proprietor's description of their respective business origins suggests that the Proprietor is taking advantage of the Applicant's goodwill and creating confusion among consumers.
  • The Proprietor's request that the hearing proceed without their attendance or filing written submissions or bundle of authorities, given the serious allegation of bad faith.

Given that the Registrar held that the Applicant succeeded on grounds (1) and (2), and the Proprietor made no submissions challenging the Applicant's assertions, the Registrar decided not to make any findings on the remaining two grounds of invalidation. Instead, the Registrar made some brief observations as follows:

  • In relation to ground (3), the Registrar took the view that the Applicant's assertion that evidence of the number of visitors (from Singapore) to China translate into exposure by the relevant public, to suggest that the mark is well-known, was not substantiated. Further, "ready access to the internet" does not necessarily translate into the Applicant's overseas marketing and promotional activities' exposure to the relevant public.
  • In relation to ground (4), it was unclear if the element of misrepresentation in a passing off action, which the Registrar states would entail a comparison between the Registered Mark and the Applicant's getup, will be made out. On this issue, the Applicant only submitted in its written submissions that misrepresentation would be made out on the basis that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The Registrar felt that misrepresentation may not be made out on this basis in the present case, but did not elaborate further on this issue.
  • Further, while the Applicant owns a copyright registration for the '' image in China, the Registrar found it difficult to see how the registration would translate into the Applicant owning the copyright in the '' typeface alone. In order to show this, the Applicant would have to tender evidence to show the date of the creation of the '' typeface itself.



Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow 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 "partner" 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 © 2022 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.