SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Yvonne Tang, Lim Siau Wen and Ruby Tham, Drew & Napier LLC
restore – as much as possible – the plaintiff to the position they would have been in if the infringement had not occurred. In deciding whether to award additional damages, the court has regard to all relevant matters, including the flagrancy of the infringement and any benefit gained by the defendant because of the infringement. In assessing the quantum of statutory damages, the court will consider all relevant matters, including: • the nature and purpose of the infringing act; • the flagrancy of the infringement; • whether bad faith was involved; • any loss that the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer by reason of the infringement; • any benefit shown to have accrued to the defend - ant because of the infringement; • the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings; and In general, the court awards costs to the successful party, except where it appears to the court that, in the circumstances of the case, some other order should be made or that there are special reasons for depriv - ing the successful party of their costs in part or in full. The quantum of costs may be fixed by the court or determined by the court in assessment of costs pro - ceedings. Costs are typically assessed on the stand - ard basis, which means that all costs reasonably incurred would be allowed. Any doubts as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred should be resolved in favour of the paying party. • whether there is a need for deterrence. 10.3 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Guidelines found in the Supreme Court Practice Direc - tions 2021 provide a general indication on the quan - tum of costs awards in proceedings, including intel - lectual property cases. However, the precise amount of costs awarded remains at the discretion of the court, and the court may depart from the amounts set in the guidelines. A successful party’s costs may be reduced or disal - lowed where the successful party:
• is partially successful in establishing any claim or issue (leading to an unnecessary increase in the amount of time taken, costs or complexity of pro - ceedings); • acted unreasonably; • failed to discharge its duty to consider amicable resolution of the dispute or to make an offer of ami - cable resolution; or • failed to comply with any order of court, any rel - evant pre-action protocol or any practice direction. 10.4 Ex Parte Relief In general, all applications for relief should be heard with both parties present. In urgent cases, injunctive relief may be sought with - out notice to the defendant. The application made to the court must be supported by an affidavit stating the urgency and explaining why the defendant should not be informed about the application and the merits of the application. Paragraph 71 of the Supreme Court Practice Direc - tions 2021 prescribes that notice must be given to the other concerned parties. A minimum of two hours’ notice of the application must be given to the other concerned parties before the hearing, except in cas - es of extreme urgency or with the permission of the court. The notice should inform the other parties of the date, time and place fixed for the hearing of the application and the nature of the relief sought. If pos - sible, a copy of the originating process, the summons without notice or the originating application without notice (if no originating process has been issued yet) and supporting affidavit(s) should be given to each of the other parties in draft form as soon as they are ready to be filed in court. Notice need not be given to other concerned parties if doing so would defeat the purpose of the ex parte application (such as applications for search orders or injunctions prohibiting the disposal of assets). 10.5 Customs Seizures of Counterfeits or Parallel Imports The Singapore Customs is empowered by border enforcement measures provisions found in the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act to seize counterfeit
468 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook