Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 77 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 77 High Court (General Division) 31 March 2023 HC/TA 8/2022 42 min read

8 cases cited (5 SG, 3 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I dismiss the appeal accordingly.

Source: [2023] SGHC 77, High Court (General Division), decided 31 March 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	31 March 2023
Judge	Dedar Singh Gill
Charges / claim	Intellectual Property
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Bird & Bird ATMD LLP, Ravindran Associates LLP, Chan Wenqiang, Sivagnanaratnam Sivananthan, Sukumar s/o Karuppiah, Teo Tze She, Yip Shuen Kai Harren

Source: [2023] SGHC 77, High Court (General Division), decided 31 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Intellectual Property – Geographical Indications – Qualification of rights – Translations of geographical indications

Practice Areas

Intellectual Property

Judges (1)

Dedar Singh Gill Delivered

Counsel (7)

Bird & Bird ATMD LLP Firm Ravindran Associates LLP Firm Chan Wenqiang Counsel Appellant Sivagnanaratnam Sivananthan Counsel Respondent Sukumar s/o Karuppiah Counsel Appellant Teo Tze She Counsel Respondent Yip Shuen Kai Harren Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano Respondent Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd Appellant

Case Significance

Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2023] SGHC 77 was a Tribunal Appeal (No 8 of 2022) heard in the General Division of the High Court by Dedar Singh Gill J, argued on 6 February 2023 with judgment reserved and delivered on 31 March 2023. The appeal turned on whether "Parmesan" is a translation of the registered geographical indication "Parmigiano Reggiano", protected for cheese under the Geographical Indications Act 2014 and owned by the respondent Consorzio. Fonterra had submitted a request to qualify the protection so it would not extend to the term "Parmesan"; the Principal Assistant Registrar Sandy Widjaja found that "Parmesan" is a translation of "Parmigiano Reggiano" and should be accorded protection, and Fonterra appealed that ruling.

[2023] SGHC 77 explained

Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano ([2023] SGHC 77) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 March 2023. It is categorised under Intellectual Property. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 77 about?

Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano ([2023] SGHC 77) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Intellectual Property – Geographical Indications – Qualification of rights – Translations of geographical indications”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 77 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 77?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 77 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd appealed against a decision of the Principal Assistant Registrar concerning the geographical indication "Parmigiano Reggiano" for cheese, protected under the Geographical Indications Act 2014. The central issue was whether the term "Parmesan" is a translation of "Parmigiano Reggiano" and thus within the scope of protection. Finding that the respondent had proved "Parmesan" is a translation and that Fonterra failed to establish consumer perception of the terms as distinct, the court dismissed the appeal.

What was the issue in Fonterra Brands v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano ([2023] SGHC 77)?

The Tribunal Appeal turned on whether "Parmesan" is a translation of the registered geographical indication "Parmigiano Reggiano", which is protected for cheese under the Geographical Indications Act 2014. Dedar Singh Gill J heard the appeal in the General Division of the High Court on 6 February 2023.

What did the Principal Assistant Registrar decide in the Parmesan geographical indication case ([2023] SGHC 77)?

The Principal Assistant Registrar Sandy Widjaja found in favour of the respondent, Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano, ruling that "Parmesan" is a translation of "Parmigiano Reggiano" and should therefore be accorded protection. Fonterra Brands appealed that ruling to the High Court.