Singapore Business Law and Copy Right Law - Essay Example

In Singapore, Copyright law constitutes the following criminal offenses:
• Production of replicas, that infringe the copyrights of the original manufacturer, with intent to sell;

• Vending infringing facsimiles.
• Possessing or importing infringing duplicates for sale and any business purpose to the extent that the original owner of the copyrighted product is affected
• Distributing these copies for business purposes or for any other reason to such a scope that it ultimately affects the owner of the copyright prejudicially (Stomp, 2013).
Recently such cases have been seen widely in Singapore. One of these reported incidents with the proceeding of the court decision is of copying the brand name and logo of “Nutella” and launching its replica “Nutella”. Although “Nutella” was a chocolate spread and “Nutella” was a beverage series of coffee, cocoa, and tea, still the court decides the following with special reference to Singapore Business law,

The courts concluded that the Appellant who launches a replica copy of “Nutella” has been convicted under the following sections,
(1) Appellant was accountable for infringing trademarks under Section 27 (2) (b) of the Trademark Act, and
(2) Respondent’s assertion on dilution by blotching had been focused on and established under Section 55 (3) (b) (i) of the Trademark Act (Gallezo, 2013).
The court concluded the following facts with special reference to this particular case,

1. Assessing resemblance in goods:
The court, first of all, evaluates whether there are similarities between both parties' goods under Section 27 (2) (b) of the Trade Mark Act.

The law states that the phrase or the name of the replica must have visual, aural, and conceptual compatibility. In this case, the name possesses visual and aural similarity but the concept was a bit different for both organizations. The court concluded that the products will be regarded alike even when one of these three aspects is missing. This is because a relationship must be established and accessed with the terms under which the “Nutella” has been made in the record and not what it is dealing with. The wordmark “Nutella” has been registered for anything that deals with chocolate that relates to chocolate in any physical form (Gallezo, 2013).

2. Similarity in Sign/Logo: The court proceeded further to access the similarity between the logos of both companies and the replica company was convicted as the court concluded the following statement:

“The logos are the same and as they are used in the same aspect as the original trademark is registered so this also comes under infringement as this may evoke confusion in customers.
3. Concept of dilution and its relationship with infringement:
The judicial panel examined the concept of dilution in detail and concluded that according to Section 2 (1) (b) of the Trademark Act, dilution even if not likelihood to cause bewilderment and uncertainty in the general public, is still regarded as infringement because make likely to cause it in prospect.

4. Infringement- even if not an economic loss to the trademark holder:
The court moves further to drive a relationship between whether the case still comes under infringement if the original trademark holder is not having any economic loss.?
The conclusion was yes, as there are drastic changes in the financial response of customers so this cannot be measured and predicted. For this purpose any infringed product if not giving economic loss now, can be damaging to the financial status of the trademark holder shortly. For this purpose infringement must be condemned at all stages.
A similar incident has been reported in Thailand in which the KFC (renowned fast food chain) has been copied by a small restaurant in which the owner of that eatery uses the same logo and color combination as that of KFC but uses the picture of Hitler (the notorious ruler) instead of Colonel Sanders who is the native icon of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Reports are being circulated that KFC will take legal action soon against this purposeful infringement.

Conclusion:
So the Singapore business law condemns infringement even at the minor stages to keep up the reputation of the original brand and prevents an economic or financial loss that the brand may likely experience shortly. Read More