In Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v. Triple D Trading Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 15, the General Division of Singapore’s High Court considered the remedy of account of profits in a passing off action, clarifying how courts should approach estimation, deductions and evidential gaps. 

The claimant, Fanco Fan Marketing, marketed ceiling fans under “CO-FAN” (and a model “HELI”). The defendant, Triple D Trading, run by a former employee of Fanco, launched fans under “COFAN” (model “HALI”) and registered “COFAN” as a trade mark. 

Triple D commenced infringement proceedings against Fanco for use of the mark, “CO-FAN”. In response, Fanco sought to invalidate Triple D’s “COFAN” mark in Classes 9 and 11 on the ground of bad faith, and succeeded. The trial judge found that Triple D had sought to capitalize on Fanco’s goodwill in its “FANCO” mark, given the parties’ prior relationship and the similarities in their product launches. As a result, Triple D’s infringement claim failed and its “COFAN” registration was ordered to be expunged. 

In the present suit, Fanco succeeded in obtaining summary judgment  against Triple D for passing off and elected an account of profits as a remedy.  

The key issue was how to compute profits from Triple D’s passing off when documentary evidence was incomplete or missing. 

Procedural history and election of remedy 

After summary judgment was entered for Fanco, an inquiry was ordered into damages or, at Fanco’s election, an account of profits. Fanco sought disclosure of source documents, but Triple D claimed the documents had been lost in an office move. Fanco then elected for an account of profits as an alternative. 

Parties’ cases on account of profits 

Claimant’s case. Fanco challenged Triple D’s unaudited summary sales breakdown between August 1, 2021, to October 31, 2022 (the breakdown) as inaccurate and unsupported by source documents. Fanco contended that the revenue from April 23, 2021, to July 31, 2021, and 11 omitted invoices from August 1, 2021, to October 31, 2022, should be included. 

Fanco proposed extrapolating the average monthly sales from April 23, 2021, to August 31, 2021, across the full relevant period from April 23, 2021, to October 31, 2022, as this span reflected the entire duration during which Triple D was shown by its own invoices to have been selling the “COFAN” fans. It also submitted that no deductions for costs should be made since Triple D failed to prove any costs and expenses, or in the alternative, that deductions be limited to manufacturing costs per fan. 

Defendant’s case. Triple D asserted it made no profits, but instead incurred losses, from the sale of the “COFAN” fans. Alternatively, it accepted extrapolation but argued for deductions for costs and a 50 percent margin of error in its favour, as the breakdown had been finalized without source documents and might overstate profits. 

Triple D advanced estimates for manufacturing, logistics and variable costs, and sought corporate tax reductions. 

Court’s decision 

Material period and reliability of the breakdown 

The court accepted that the relevant period for acts of passing off was April 23, 2021, to October 31, 2022. It rejected the breakdown as a reliable account of all the revenue generated by Triple D. Triple D’s explanations were evasive and inconsistent, unsupported by documents, and the timing of the breakdown appeared self-serving. The court was unpersuaded by the claim that source documents were lost during an office move, especially since the move occurred after the suit commenced. 

By contrast, the invoices disclosed from April 23, 2021, to August 31, 2021, supported by additional data, were accepted as objective evidence. 

Revenue extrapolation 

The court accepted extrapolation of the base period data as the best available indicator of total revenue but declined to apply a margin of error in favour of Triple D, finding no reason why the revenue generated in the period starting April 23 to August 31, 2021, would not be a reasonable estimation of the revenue generated in the material period. 

Deduction – direct and indirect costs 

The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the defendant to justify deductions from revenue to arrive at the quantum accountable as profits. 

Due to the paucity of documents, the court based Triple D’s manufacturing costs off Fanco’s own fans, and transport expenses off Fanco’s estimates. A deduction was also allowed for promotional give away units. 

The court adopted a two-step test to assess deductibility of indirect overhead costs that Triple D may have incurred (the deductibility test): 

1. Would the overhead have been incurred in any event without the tortious acts? 

2. Was there any opportunity cost incurred due to the tortious act? 

Rental, vehicle and staff costs failed to satisfy the first step of the deductibility test and were disallowed. 

The court also refused any deduction for taxes as no office tax records were produced. 

Costs and indemnity costs 

Although Triple D’s conduct raised credibility concerns, it did not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness for indemnity costs. The court awarded Fanco standard costs. 

Significance 

The decision provides useful guidance on how Singapore courts approach an account of profits in passing off cases, especially those with incomplete evidence. It underscores that parties must maintain proper records; confirms the flexibility of the courts to make reasonable estimations; and delineates clear boundaries on allowable deductions.