← All Authorities
Singapore trademarks

Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd

[2017] 2 SLR 308
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

SGCA clarified that in trademark opposition, visual, aural, and conceptual similarity are assessed holistically, and high similarity in one element may outweigh differences in others.

Key Principle

The SGCA clarified the marks-similarity inquiry in trademark opposition: the court considers visual, aural, and conceptual similarity, and a high degree of similarity in one element can outweigh differences in others.

Area of Law

ip

Related Cases

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (2014) 254 CLR 337

Foreign words used as trademarks are assessed for descriptiveness in the Australian English-speaking market; Italian words for coffee were registrable as not inherently descriptive.

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commonwealth (2012) 246 CLR 561

Statutory licence scheme for sound recordings validly enacted under constitutional copyright power and did not constitute an unjust acquisition of property.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2012) 248 CLR 42

An ISP that failed to act on infringement notices did not authorise subscribers' copyright infringement via BitTorrent, as it lacked the requisite control over the infringing acts.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesars...