Please wait while the page is loading...


Definitions of ‘Import’ and ‘Export’ for Trademark Infringement Purposes in Singapore Clarified in Louis Vuitton Case

22 February 2018

Definitions of ‘Import’ and ‘Export’ for Trademark Infringement Purposes in Singapore Clarified in Louis Vuitton Case

In the recent Singapore High Court case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 305, the court held that a freight forwarder who was unwittingly sent counterfeit goods into Singapore for transhipment was not liable for trademark infringement.


The case concerned two shipments from China bound for Indonesia via Singapore. The shipments comprised two containers filled with counterfeit goods.


Both containers were inspected and seized by Singapore Customs under the amended border control provisions in the Trade Marks Act. These provisions – which, as the court noted, appear to have been enacted to address the requirements of the US Singapore Free Trade Agreement’s ex officio procedures – allowed for the seizure and detention of the suspected counterfeit goods regardless of whether they were merely in transit through Singapore.


Following the seizure and inspection of the counterfeit goods, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings for trademark infringement against the freight forwarder, Megastar Shipping Pte Ltd.


The basis of the infringement action was that Megastar had imported and/ or exported the counterfeit goods into or from Singapore, contrary to Section 27(1) read together with (4)(c)of the Trade Marks Act.


Since Megastar accepted that the seized goods were counterfeit goods in respect of the relevant trademarks, there were three questions for the court.


The first question was whether, considering that the consignments were merely in transit through Singapore, the goods had in fact been “imported” to Singapore for the purposes of the infringement provisions of the Trade Marks Act.


The answer to that question was yes. Section 2(1) of the Trade Marks Act defines “importing” a thing into Singapore where it is “brought into Singapore by land, sea, or air” in the course of trade. Therefore, since the goods had been brought into Singapore, they had been “imported” for the purposes of Section 27(4)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.


In arriving at its conclusion, the court noted the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) whereby goods are only “imported” into a member state of the EU where they are intended for circulation in that member state. The court believed that the ECJ’s reasoning on this point was “heavily driven” by concerns relating to the free movement of goods within the EU. For the purposes of the infringement provisions of the Singapore Trade Marks Act, no intention to circulate the goods in the Singapore market is required.


The second question was whether, given that the counterfeit goods had been imported into Singapore, Megastar was their importer for the purposes of infringement proceedings.


That question required a more factsensitive answer. The court held that whether a person could legitimately be described as an “importer” had nothing to do with the labels attached to it by the various customs authorities or the terms used on the relevant forms. It had everything to do with an analysis of the nature of the underlying transaction between the parties to the shipment.


Applying the court’s analysis to the specific facts of the case, the court held that Megastar was not the importer. Amongst other things, the court took into account that (a) Megastar never acquired any property in the counterfeit goods, and (b) Megastar was never actually in physical possession of the containers, which were transhipped under the control of the Port Authority of Singapore acting on Megastar’s instructions.


The final question was whether Megastar was liable for exporting goods under the counterfeit sign.


The answer to that question was no. First, since the goods had been seized and detained by customs prior to their actual export, the success of the infringement action depended on whether a mere intention to export counterfeit goods was sufficient for the purposes of Section 27(4)(c) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that it could not be. Secondly, in any event, just as Megastar was not an “importer” of the counterfeit goods, neither was it a would-be exporter. Similar reasoning applied. Amongst other things, Megastar was, in respect of the intended export, appointed for the limited purpose of arranging transhipment. It acted merely as an agent carrying out the instructions of its principal.


This decision has come as welcome news to the transhipment industry in Singapore. However, caution should still be exercised since the court’s findings were dependent on the facts.



mirandah asia (singapore) pte ltd

1 Coleman Street

#07-08 The Adelphi

Singapore 179803

T: +65 6336 9696

F: +65 6338 3739


About the author

Gladys Mirandah

Gladys Mirandah is a Director of mirandah asia, an intellectual property boutique practice based in Singapore and Malaysia, with offices in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines. She has over forty years experience in Intellectual Property practice.

Gladys specializes in intellectual property law and handles the full range of intellectual property matters including prosecution of patent, trademark and design registrations as well as litigation and enforcement actions on IP matters.

Gladys was a Committee Member of the Intellectual Property Committee of the Law Society of Singapore and has served as a Committee Member of the Singapore Chapter of the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA).  She has also served as a Council Member of the ASEAN Intellectual Property Association.  Gladys is an active member in INTA having been involved in various committees such as the Membership Committee, the Meetings Committee, Planning Committee and Speaker and Training Sub-Committee. She has been a Chairperson and Speaker at INTA-organised events. Currently, Gladys is an active contributor to several publications including the ITMA Review and INTA Bulletin covering the Far East. She is also an Editor of INTA's Cancellation Actions Project covering Asia.

Gladys has participated in several international forums, including being a guest speaker for the Shanghai International Symposium, the Japan Group of APAA, the Customs Intellectual Property Information Center (CIPIC), the Institute of Trademark and Patent Attorneys of Australia (IPTA) and the Bayerische Patentanwaltsverein in Munich.

mirandah asia is a one-stop shop for intellectual property matters in ASEAN.

Law firms

Law firms