SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kwek Mean Luck |
| Charges / claim | Intellectual Property |
| Counsel | Ghows LLC, Mirandah Law LLP, Dinesh Kumar, Millicent Lui Qiao Xin, O'Connor Pauline Teresa, Suhaimi bin Lazim, Sukumar Karuppiah, Teh Ri Xing Ruth |
Source: [2025] SGHC 51, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC 51 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 26 March 2025 concerning Intellectual Property, specifically addressing trade mark and trade names and trade mark and trade names— relative ground for refusal. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck. The case was brought by Sunrise Plus (Pte) Ltd (appellant) against The Sunrider Corporation dba Sunrider International (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Ghows LLC and Mirandah Law LLP. The judgment cites 11 cases and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Trade Marks Act.
[2025] SGHC 51 explained
SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL ([2025] SGHC 51) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 March 2025. It is categorised under Intellectual Property. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2025] SGHC 51 about?
SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL ([2025] SGHC 51) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Intellectual Property — Trade mark and trade names — Relative ground for refusal — Passing off” and “Intellectual Property — Trade mark and trade names— Relative ground for refusal — Similarity to earlier registered trade mark”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 51 consider?
The judgment refers to Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Sunrise Plus appealed against IPOS's decision to refuse registration of its trade marks in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 35, which were opposed by The Sunrider Corporation on grounds of similarity to its earlier 'SUNRIDER' marks and passing off. The court allowed the appeal on the passing off ground but dismissed it on the similarity ground under s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, ultimately refusing registration as the marks remained similar to the earlier registered marks.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC 51?
[2025] SGHC 51 (SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 26 March 2025 addressing Intellectual Property, specifically trade mark and trade names and trade mark and trade names— relative ground for refusal. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck.
Who were the parties in SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL ([2025] SGHC 51)?
The appellant in [2025] SGHC 51 was Sunrise Plus (Pte) Ltd, and the respondent was The Sunrider Corporation dba Sunrider International. Legal representation included Ghows LLC and Mirandah Law LLP. The case was decided on 26 March 2025 in the High Court (General Division).
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 51?
[2025] SGHC 51 was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck in the High Court (General Division) on 26 March 2025. The case concerned Intellectual Property.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 51 cite?
[2025] SGHC 51 cites 11 prior decisions. It references Trade Marks Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (11)
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 ([2025] SGHC 51)