Singapore Trade Marks - Technopharma Limited v Unilever PLC [2021] SGIPOS 11

Tribunal/Court:

IPOS

 

Type:

Revocation

 

Registered Proprietor’s Registered Marks (“Registered Marks”):

1. 

Singapore Trade Mark No. T8802249B in Class 3 [Soaps, cosmetics, skin creams and lotions, non-medicated toilet preparations.] (“The Logo Mark”)

2. 

Singapore Trade Mark No. T0808259J in Class 3 [Soaps; essential oils; bath and shower preparations [non-medicated]; skin care preparations [non-medicated]; oils, creams and lotions for the skin [non-medicated]; shaving preparations; pre-shave and aftershave preparations; depilatory preparations; sun-tanning and sun protection preparations [cosmetic]; cosmetics; make-up and make-up removing preparations; petroleum jelly [for cosmetic use]; lip care preparations [non-medicated]; talcum powder; cotton wool, cotton sticks [for cosmetic use]; cosmetic pads, tissues or wipes, all impregnated with non-medicated preparations for personal use; cleansing pads, tissues or wipes, pre-moistened or impregnated with cosmetic preparations; beauty masks, facial packs [cosmetic]]. (“The Series Mark”)

3. 

Singapore Trade Mark No. T0404547Z in Class 3 [Perfumery; essential oils; deodorants and antiperspirants; shaving preparations; pre-shave and aftershave preparations; depilatory preparations; cotton wool, cotton sticks.] (“The Word Mark”)

 

Procedural History:

This trade mark revocation action was commenced by Technopharma Limited against Unilever PLC, a competitor’s registered marks above in Class 3 for, among other things, personal care/hygiene products.

 

Claim(s)/Issue(s):

1. The Registered Proprietor has not commenced use of the mark within a period of five years (i.e. “first relevant period”) after the completion of the registration procedure; and
2. The use of the Registered mark was suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years (i.e. “second relevant period”).

These Relevant Periods are the specific timeframes during which the Proprietor (or a third party, with the Proprietor’s consent) must have genuinely used the registered marks.

 

Decision:

Revocation was successful and Registered Marks were revoked as from the following dates (being the first day immediately following the end of each of the respective first relevant period):

1. The Logo Mark: 21 July 1995

There was no evidence of use of The Logo Mark in the exact form in which it had been registered. The Registrar has found that the distinctive character of The Logo Mark resided in the combinations of two components – the words “Fair & Lovely” and pictorial elements. He also determined that what appeared in the product-packaging images (provided by the Applicant as evidence of their genuine use) had additions, alterations and adaptations to the registered form of The Logo Mark, thereby altering their distinctive character.

2. The Series Mark: 17 October 2013

There was no evidence of use of The Series Mark in the exact form in which it had been registered. The Registrar has found that the distinctive character of The Series Mark resided in the combinations of two components – the words “Fair & Lovely” and pictorial elements. He also determined that what appeared in the product-packaging images (provided by the Applicant as evidence of their genuine use) had additions, alterations and adaptations to the registered form of The Series Mark, thereby altering their distinctive character.

3. The Word Mark: 25 September 2017

There was no evidence of use of The Word Mark on any of the goods specified in the registration.