EAST COAST PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. v FAMILY PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Dedar Singh Gill |
| Charges / claim | Intellectual Property |
| Counsel | Hin Tat Augustine & Partners, LegalStandard LLP, Mohamed Zikri bin Mohamed Muzammil, Phipps Jonathan, Quay Wee Meng Andrew |
Source: [2024] SGHC 102, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 102 was decided by the General Division of the High Court (Originating Claim No 33 of 2022), with Dedar Singh Gill J delivering judgment on 17 April 2024 after hearings on 2-3 November 2023 and 19 January 2024. The claimant, East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, a Singapore-registered company operating four podiatry centres in the Kembangan, Orchard, Novena and Bukit Timah regions, was the registered proprietor of trade marks containing the words "East Coast Podiatry". On three separate occasions the defendant, Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, used Google Ads to display advertisements containing the words "east coast podiatry", "podiatry east coast" and "podiatrist east coast". The court considered whether this amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off, and concluded that it was not infringing use and that there was no passing off.
[2024] SGHC 102 explained
EAST COAST PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. v FAMILY PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 102) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 17 April 2024. 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 [2024] SGHC 102 about?
EAST COAST PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. v FAMILY PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 102) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Passing off” and “Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Infringement — Internet usage”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 102 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97) and Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2024] SGHC 102?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 102 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
East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, the registered proprietor of trade marks containing the words "East Coast Podiatry", sued Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd over the latter's use of Google Ads displaying advertisements containing phrases such as "east coast podiatry", alleging trade mark infringement and passing off. Both companies provide podiatry services in Singapore. The General Division of the High Court concluded, on the facts of the case, that the defendant's use was not infringing and that there was no likelihood of confusion giving rise to passing off, and accordingly held that both claims failed.
What did the court decide in East Coast Podiatry Centre v Family Podiatry Centre [2024] SGHC 102?
Dedar Singh Gill J held that the defendant's use of the words "east coast podiatry", "podiatry east coast" and "podiatrist east coast" in Google Ads was not infringing use of the claimant's trade marks and did not amount to passing off. The claimant operated four podiatry centres in Singapore.
Can a competitor use trade-marked keywords in Google Ads according to [2024] SGHC 102?
In East Coast Podiatry Centre v Family Podiatry Centre [2024] SGHC 102, the High Court found the defendant's use of "East Coast Podiatry" variants in Google Ads, on three occasions, was not trade mark infringement and not passing off. The decision turned on the Trade Marks Act and the specific facts.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (15)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 102)