[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-635156-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-635156-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","2008-sghc-158-love-co-pte-ltd-v-the-carat-club-pte-ltd","[2008] SGHC 158 - Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd","","High Court of Singapore case OS 225/2008 ([2008] SGHC 158) between Love & Co Pte Ltd and The Carat Club Pte Ltd concerns the validity, registration, and possible revocation of the defendant’s registered word mark “LOVE” for jewellery in Class 14. The dispute addresses absolute grounds for refusal under s 7 read with ss 7(1)(a)-(d), whether the mark acquired distinctiveness through use under s 23(2), and whether the mark should be revoked for non-use, including the evidential burden and the effect of sporadic alternative usage.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/2008-sghc-158-love-co-pte-ltd-v-the-carat-club-pte-ltd/635156/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/2008-sghc-158-love-co-pte-ltd-v-the-carat-club-pte-ltd/635156.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"I feel Different","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the main dispute in [2008] SGHC 158?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Love & Co Pte Ltd sought to invalidate and/or revoke The Carat Club Pte Ltd’s registered “LOVE” word mark for jewellery in Class 14, challenging its registration validity and asking for revocation.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What legal grounds were relied on to attack the “LOVE” mark?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The case involves alleged breaches of s 7 of the Trade Marks Act, including absolute grounds for refusal under s 7(1)(a)-(d), and whether the mark could be saved by acquired distinctiveness under s 23(2).",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Can a registered word mark be revoked for non-use, and what is the burden of proof?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Yes. The proceedings consider whether revocation should be granted for non-use and specifically address the burden of proving use, including situations where the mark is not used in its registered plain form.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},635156,1793052548,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962093541761,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd  \n[2008] SGHC 158  \nCase Number : OS 225/2008  \nDecision Date : 22 September 2008 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : C han Seng Onn J  \nCounsel Name(s) : Gill Dedar Singh and Paul Teo ( Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiff; Yew Woon  \nChooi and Alvin Lim ( Rodyk & Davidson LLP) for the defendant  \nParties : Love & Co Pte Ltd — The Carat Club Pte Ltd  \nTrade Marks and Trade Names – Grounds for refusal of registration – Whether registered  \nproprietor 's word mark caught under the four absolute grounds for refusal of registration – Section  \n2 read with ss 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)  \n– Whether registered proprietor 's word mark had acquired distinctive character by virtue of usage and thus rescued by s 23(2) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)  \nTrade Marks and Trade Names – Invalidity – Grounds for declaring registered word mark invalid  \n– Whether registered proprietor 's word mark satisfied definition of \"trade mark\" – Whether registered proprietor 's word mark capable of distinguishing – Whether registered proprietor 's word mark had acquired distinctive character by the time of registration – Whether registered proprietor 's word mark designated an intended purpose of jewellery per s 7(1)(c) – Whether registered proprietor 's word mark customary in the current language or established practices of the trade – Section 2 read with ss 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d) read with ss 23(2) and 7(2)  \nTrade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)  \nTrade Marks and Trade Names – Registration criteria – Whether registered proprietor 's word mark capable of being graphically represented and capable of distinguishing proprietor 's goods from another 's – Section 2 read with s 7(1)(a) Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)  \nTrade Marks and Trade Names – Revocation – Whether to revoke registered proprietor 's trademark for non-use – Burden of proving use – Glaring absence of use of registered proprietor 's trademark in pristine form which was a word mark in plain typeface – Whether sporadic use of a fanciful mark bearing same word as the former and more widespread use of another fanciful trademark with the same word embedded within it tantamount to simultaneous use of the plain word mark  \n– Sections 22(1), 22(2) and 105 Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed)  \n22 September 2008 Judgment reserved. C han Seng Onn J:  \nIntroduction  \n1 “LOVE” is the registered trade mark in Singapore ( No T 99/03815H) of the defendant , The Carat Club Pte Ltd. In this action, the plaintiff, Love & Co . Pte Ltd, seeks to invalidate and/or revoke the“LOVE” trade mark.  \n2 Since the “LOVE” trade mark has been accepted for registration and entered on the Register of Trade Marks, the plaintiff, who is now challenging the validity of the registration, has the burden of proving that the registration of the trade mark is in breach of s 7 of the Trade Marks Act ( Cap 332, 2005 Rev. Ed. ) (“TMA”) . Section 101(c)(i) of the T MA makes it clear that the registration of a personas proprietor of a registered trade mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the original registration in all legal proceedings relating to a registered trade mark.  \nVersion No 0: 22 Sep 2008 (00:00 hrs)  \nBackground of the plaintiff and how the dispute arose  \n3 The plaintiff was incorporated recently on 4 June 2007 for the purpose of launching upmarket jewellery stores specialising in rings and wedding bands .  \n4 According to Mr Lim Yong Sheng (“Lim YS”) , a director of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s related Malaysian company, Love & Co . Sdn Bhd, received a demand letter dated 25 October 2007 ( prior to the launch of its Malaysian store on 2 November 2007 in Kuala Lumpur) from the solicitors acting for the defendant ’s related Malaysian company. The latter alleged both passing off and trade mark infringement by the plaintiff of its Malaysian Trade Mark No . 98003392, “the LOVE Diamon","cbCaiuVjVogfQo1t","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuVjVogfQo1t","pdf",279861,33,"English","# Introduction\n# Background of the plaintiff and how the dispute arose\n# Background of the defendant and its registered trade marks\n# Issues for determination\n## Grounds for refusal and distinctiveness\n## Invalidity and registration criteria\n## Revocation for non-use and evidential burden","[{\"question\":\"What is the main dispute in [2008] SGHC 158?\",\"answer\":\"Love \\u0026 Co Pte Ltd sought to invalidate and/or revoke The Carat Club Pte Ltd’s registered “LOVE” word mark for jewellery in Class 14, challenging its registration validity and asking for revocation.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal grounds were relied on to attack the “LOVE” mark?\",\"answer\":\"The case involves alleged breaches of s 7 of the Trade Marks Act, including absolute grounds for refusal under s 7(1)(a)-(d), and whether the mark could be saved by acquired distinctiveness under s 23(2).\"},{\"question\":\"Can a registered word mark be revoked for non-use, and what is the burden of proof?\",\"answer\":\"Yes. The proceedings consider whether revocation should be granted for non-use and specifically address the burden of proving use, including situations where the mark is not used in its registered plain form.\"}]","[2008] SGHC 158 - Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd | PDF",1792675413,83]