DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Gan Kam Yuin |
| Charges / claim | Intellectual Property |
| Counsel | AKT Legal Chambers, Gomez & Vasu LLC, Anand s/o K Thiagarajan, Gomez Winnifred, Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu |
Source: [2025] SGHCR 35, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHCR 35 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 28 October 2025 concerning Intellectual Property, specifically addressing trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin. The case was brought by Dr Who Global Watertech (S) Pte. Ltd. and others (plaintiff) against Dr Who (M) Sdn. Bhd. and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Gomez & Vasu LLC and AKT Legal Chambers. The judgment cites 6 cases (5 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Evidence Act and the Trade Marks Act.
[2025] SGHCR 35 explained
DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 35) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 28 October 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] SGHCR 35 about?
DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 35) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Remedies — Damages — 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 35 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.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGHCR 35 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 163. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Following a finding of trade mark infringement for use of the 'DR. WHO' mark, the court assessed damages on an account of profits and loss of profits basis. The court awarded the plaintiffs $9,000 for loss of profits from a vehicle displaying the infringing mark and $20,000 as the fair value of profits to be accounted for from sales of cartons bearing the infringing sign.
What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 35?
[2025] SGHCR 35 (DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors) is a High Court Registrar decision from 28 October 2025 addressing Intellectual Property, specifically trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin.
Who were the parties in DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 35)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHCR 35 was Dr Who Global Watertech (S) Pte. Ltd., Dr Who Laboratories (S) Pte. Ltd., and the defendant was Dr Who (M) Sdn. Bhd., Dr Who (S) Pte. Ltd.. Legal representation included AKT Legal Chambers and Gomez & Vasu LLC. The case was decided on 28 October 2025 in the High Court Registrar.
Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 35?
[2025] SGHCR 35 was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin in the High Court Registrar on 28 October 2025. The case concerned Intellectual Property.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 35 cite?
[2025] SGHCR 35 cites 6 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Evidence Act, Trade Marks Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (6)
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 35)