Singapore Trade Marks - Skins IP Limited v Symphony Holdings Limited and [2021] SGIPOS 5






Trade Mark Revocation – Interlocutory Hearing Objection by Skins IP Limited (Applicant for Revocation) on the Application to File a Late Request for Extension of Time to File Evidence made by Symphony Holdings Ltd (Registered Proprietor)


Registered Proprietor's Registered Mark:

skins trade mark

Classes: 10, 18, 25 and 28


Procedural History:

On 28 February 2020, at a Case Management Conference for the Revocation application by Skins IP Limited, the Registrar issued deadlines concerning when parties are to file their respective evidence in the form of statutory declarations.


The Applicant’s deadline to file its evidence was 28 April 2020. However, after 4 requests of extensions of time the Applicant finally filed its evidence on 10th December 2020. Accordingly, the deadline for the Registered Proprietor’s to file its evidence was 10 February 2021 (“Deadline”).


On 16 February 2021, 4 working days after the expiration of the Deadline, the Registered Proprietor filed a late request for an extension of time. On the same day the Applicant objected to the Registered Proprietor’s late request.



Whether the Registered Proprietor’s late application for an extension of time to file its evidence can be allowed. The applicable provision is Rule 83:


“Any irregularity in procedure which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is not detrimental to the interests of any person or party may be corrected on such terms as the Registrar may direct.”



Objection was disallowed. The Registered Proprietor’s late request for extension of time was allowed.

The late request for an extension of time to file the Registered Proprietor’s evidence was allowed on the ground that any prejudice suffered by the Applicant is one which can be compensated by costs given that the delay to file the request for an extension of time was only 4 working days.



The pioneers of compression sportswear Skins fails to prevent  the registered proprietor of a similar mark from filing its evidence late. The Registrar’s was not convinced that a 4 working day delay would prejudice Skins.