FANCO FAN MARKETING PTE. LTD. v TRIPLE D TRADING PTE. LTD.
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Gerome Goh Teng Jun |
| Charges / claim | Intellectual Property |
| Counsel | Bird & Bird ATMD LLP, Sanders Law LLC, Isaac Ray Pereira, Loy Ming Chuen Brendan, Nicholas Say Gui Xi, Oh Ping-Ping, Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh |
Source: [2025] SGHCR 15, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHCR 15 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 21 May 2025 concerning Intellectual Property, specifically addressing trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Gerome Goh Teng Jun. The case was brought by Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd (plaintiff) against Triple D Trading Pte Ltd (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Bird & Bird ATMD LLP and Sanders Law LLC. The judgment cites 12 cases (7 Singapore, 5 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Trade Marks Act. This decision has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment in the dataset.
[2025] SGHCR 15 explained
FANCO FAN MARKETING PTE. LTD. v TRIPLE D TRADING PTE. LTD. ([2025] SGHCR 15) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 21 May 2025. 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 [2025] SGHCR 15 about?
FANCO FAN MARKETING PTE. LTD. v TRIPLE D TRADING PTE. LTD. ([2025] SGHCR 15) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Passing off — Remedies — Account of profits”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHCR 15 consider?
The judgment refers to Trade Marks Act (Cap 322) 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 [2025] SGHCR 15?
Within this corpus, [2025] SGHCR 15 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
Following a passing off judgment against Triple D Trading for selling ceiling fans under the 'COFAN' sign, the court conducted an account of profits. The court found the defendant liable to pay $316,590.18 in profits from sales of COFAN fans during the material period, calculated as total revenue of $673,367.93 less allowable costs of $356,777.75, with interest from the midpoint of the material period.
What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 15?
[2025] SGHCR 15 (FANCO FAN MARKETING PTE. LTD. v TRIPLE D TRADING PTE. LTD.) is a High Court Registrar decision from 21 May 2025 addressing Intellectual Property, specifically trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Gerome Goh Teng Jun.
Who were the parties in FANCO FAN MARKETING PTE. LTD. v TRIPLE D TRADING PTE. LTD. ([2025] SGHCR 15)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHCR 15 was Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd, and the defendant was Triple D Trading Pte Ltd. Legal representation included Sanders Law LLC and Bird & Bird ATMD LLP. The case was decided on 21 May 2025 in the High Court Registrar.
Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 15?
[2025] SGHCR 15 was delivered by Gerome Goh Teng Jun in the High Court Registrar on 21 May 2025. The case concerned Intellectual Property.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 15 cite?
[2025] SGHCR 15 cites 12 prior decisions, including 5 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Trade Marks Act. The decision has itself been cited by 1 subsequent judgment.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
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] SGHCR 15)