Read Article - Samuel Seow Law Corporation

The SSLC Newsletter
June 2008
Volume 3, Issue 3
Samuel Seow Law Corporation is a law corporation incorporated with limited liability in the Republic of Singapore
From the desk of Samuel Seow
Special Interest Article:
Welcome to the June edition of the SSLC Newsletter!
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd
(formerly known as E D &
F Man International (S)
Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark
Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR
663
9
In this Issue
Director’s Message
1
Updates on IP
3
Special Interest Article
9
Office Happenings
15
Speaking Engagements
16
Events & Happenings
17
Office Details
31
I seem to point this out all the time, but it really does shock me how quickly
time passes. I write to you this month a few days after mid point of the year
2008(!). Foremost in my mind as I put fingers to keyboard this month, is the
wedding of Ms Junaidah Arifin, my colleague in SSLC and known to you as
a Paralegal in our Intellectual Property Practice Group. As I was in Berlin at
the time, I regrettably could not attend the wedding nor indulge in my favourite
Malay foods, but the rest of the office did, and I have seen pictures of these
posted everywhere on Facebook. Some of these pictures are reproduced
here for your viewing pleasure. The little girl who joined us in 2005 is all
grown up now. Congratulations Jun, and God bless you with all things
beautiful!
Also, from next month there will be a new addition to our Corporate Practice
Group. Ms Laura Liew joins us on 1 July 2008 as Senior Associate. She
graduated from the National University of Singapore with an LLB (Hons.) in
2002 and has, since her qualification as a member of the Singapore Bar in
2003, specialised in the field of intellectual property law, corporate and
commercial law. Welcome on board! From 1 July Laura may be reached at
[email protected].
The month of May also saw the successful run of Street Revolution – the
Singapore Street Festival 2008. Year after year the Festival attracts talented
youth from both within and outside of Singapore to perform, in celebration of
diversity and creativity. With the proliferation of “talent shows” on television,
we tend to limit our use of the word “talent” in description of those who can
sing or dance or pose enough to be their country’s next top model. In light of
this trend, the Singapore Street Festival is gloriously, magnificently,
alternative. From champion male belly dancers to triple tasking rope skippers
to Malay hip hoppers to genius childhood guitarists, the Festival provides a
stage for talents who would otherwise perhaps never have a platform.
Allowing for the performers to be of varying degrees of proficiency and talent,
the Festival also makes it patently clear that it does not matter if you fail, it
matters most that you try. That spirit is espoused within the person who is the
founder of the Festival and who is also close personal friend, Ms Annie Pek
and permeates through the fabric of the Festival. Demanding yet
compassionate; perfectionistic yet forgiving, Annie IS the Festival. I have had
the privilege of seeing her work and fight the battles she has had to fight, for
the good of the Festival. I am pleased to announce that in my personal
opinion this year’s Festival tops all the others. Annie, you can be very very
proud. As these words are being read, Annie and I, and a special group of
friends are working together to bring to life an initiative for a training academy
for talented youth. Watch this space for further updates!
Page 1 of 31
As we revel in our celebrations and successes, we keep in mind however the
victims of the earthquake in Sichuan. A major earthquake measuring 7.8 on
the Richter Scale, the most severe earthquake in over 25 years, struck this
part of China in the afternoon of Monday, 12 May 2008. We at Samuel Seow
Law Corporation were privileged earlier in the month to assist Habitat for
Humanity in its fund-raising efforts for the earthquake victims
To our colleagues and associates in China, or are otherwise affected by the
quake, know that our thoughts are with you and that you are in our prayers.
Page 2 of 31
UPDATES ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SINGAPORE
In the Matter of a Trade Mark Application by Pacific Rim Industries, Inc. and Opposition
Thereto by Valentino Globe B.V.
Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
Hearings and Mediation Division
Decision of the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ms P Arul Selvamalar
On 29 May 2008 the learned Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks issued her
grounds of decision in relation to the opposition to the registration of Trade Mark No.
T03/20621F in Class 18. The opposition failed and the trade mark filed by Pacific Rim
Industries, Inc. (the “Applicants”) was allowed to proceed to registration. Our Mr Samuel
Seow and Ms Trina Ha, assisted by our Ms Stella Teo, acted for the successful trade mark
applicants in this matter.
On 18 December 2003, the Applicants filed an application to register Trade Mark No.
T03/20621F, consisting of a stylised letter “V” above the words “Emilio Valentino”, separated
by a horizontal line (the “Application Mark”), in relation to leather goods in Class 18. A
representation of the Application Mark is reproduced as follows:
Following publication of the Application Mark in the Trade Marks Journal, Valentino Globe
B.V. (the “Opponents”) sought to oppose the registration of the application on various
grounds:
1.
There exists a likelihood of confusion of the part of the public due to the similarities in
the Application Mark and the marks registered by the Opponents.
Although the Opponents have registered several trade marks, the Registrar noted that
the relevant marks for the purposes of comparison were 2 marks containing a “V”
incorporated into an endless belt device above the word “VALENTINO” in plain block
letters, both filed in Class 18.
Page 3 of 31
In determining whether the Application Mark is similar to the Opponents’ Class 18
marks, the Registrar observed that, comparing the marks as wholes, the only
similarity between the marks is the word “VALENTINO”, for which there was no
evidence that it is the most significant detail or essential element of the Opponents’
marks. The Registrar held that the other dissimilar elements of the marks concerned
would enable consumers differentiate between the 2 visually dissimilar marks. The
also Registrar found that for the marks concerned, the verbal emphasis is on the
beginnings of the marks when they are spoken. The marks were therefore aurally
distinct, notwithstanding the common endings. In addition, the Registrar observed
that the Opponents’ marks are registered in relation to umbrellas, parasols and
walking sticks, rendering the specification of goods for the marks concerned
dissimilar.
In ascertaining the likelihood of confusion that may be caused by the use of the
Application Mark, the Registrar noted that the word “VALENTINO” is already being
incorporated into marks used by various traders in the fashion industry and is
therefore not distinctive solely of the Opponents’ goods. Indeed, the word appears
in so many other marks that appear on the register in the names of various other
proprietors. In light of the various differences between the marks concerned, the
Registrar took the view that the average consumer with imperfect recollection would
be able to distinguish the marks by virtue of their differing elements. The Registrar
also took cognisance of the fact that the channels of distribution, prices and the
target markets in which the Opponents and Applicants trade are different. The
registration of the Application Mark would therefore not cause the likelihood of
confusion among a substantial number of average consumers.
2.
The Application Mark is similar to a well-known mark belonging to the Opponents.
The Registrar concluded that the Opponents’ had also failed to show a requisite
continuous commercial presence in Singapore by way of sales and/or advertising
and promotion indicating that the Singaporean public knows or recognises the
Opponents’ marks for the relevant period. The Registrar therefore held that there
was insufficient evidence to establish that the Opponents’ marks were well known in
Singapore, and even if they were, there would be no likelihood of confusion as the
marks remain dissimilar.
3.
Use of the Application Mark is likely to deceive and/or cause confusion and/or lead
to the Applicants’ goods being passed off as or mistaken for those originating from
the Opponents, which would damage the goodwill and proprietary rights of the
Opponents.
Although the Registrar agreed that by virtue of the extensive use of the Opponents’
marks on clothing the Opponents have goodwill and reputation in the business of
selling clothing, it does not follow that the Opponents are known to everyone for all
goods and services. As the Application Mark is filed in relation to leather goods,
there is no misrepresentation by the Applicants that their goods originate from the
same source as those of the Opponents. Consequentially, no damage is caused to
the Opponents, and the Opponents’ allegation of passing off also fails.
Page 4 of 31
4.
The Applicants are not the bona fide proprietors of the Application Mark and
registration of the application to register the Application Mark was therefore not filed in
good faith.
The Registrar observed that even if the essential element of the Opponents’ marks
was the word “VALENTINO”, the word is used by various other traders in the fashion
industry. As such, the mere incorporation of the word “VALENTINO” in the Application
Mark did not automatically lead to an inference that the application was made in bad
faith on the basis that it was misappropriated by the Applicants.
Notwithstanding that the Opponents adduced affidavit evidence from another
proceeding that another sole proprietor was the common law proprietor of the
Application Mark, the Registrar found that the claim by the sole proprietor was merely
made in the context of an agreement to distribute and manufacture Emilio Valentino
products in Singapore. Furthermore, a lack of evidence of opposition on the part of the
Applicants to applications made by the sole proprietor to register Emilio Valentino
marks in Singapore (which applications were eventually abandoned) did not
conclusively indicate that the sole proprietor is the proprietor of the Application Mark.
As of the date of the opposition hearing, no other parties had claimed to be the
proprietor of the Emilio Valentino mark, and the only application to register such mark
was lodged by the Applicants, who are also the distributor of Emilio Valentino
products in Singapore. The Registrar was therefore satisfied that there was
insufficient evidence to support the Opponents’ contention that the Applicants are not
the proprietors of the Application Mark, or that the application was not made in good
faith.
5.
The Application Mark is non distinctive and not capable of distinguishing the
Applicants’ goods from those of the Opponents as required of a trade mark under the
Trade Mark Act
In examining the Application Mark, the Registrar concluded that it is inherently
distinctive and therefore satisfies the definition of a trade mark under the Trade Marks
Act. The Registrar also held that the Application Mark is capable of distinguishing the
Applicants’ goods from those of the Opponents.
Having considered all the pleadings and evidence filed, submissions made and oral evidence
of the Applicants’ witness, the Registrar found that the opposition failed on all grounds
pleaded, and accordingly allowed the Application Mark to proceed to registration, with taxed
costs of the opposition to be paid by the Opponents to the successful Applicants.
Page 5 of 31
REPUBLIC OF GHANA
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) took a significant step on 7 May 2008
by reiterating their support to the Republic of Ghana by signing an Intellectual Property
Development Plan. This plan aims to build the country’s capacity to create, protect and utilise
IP as a powerful tool for the country’s economic growth. Further, the plan aims to ensure that
potential users of the IP system in the country such as universities, chambers of commerce
and small and medium sized enterprises will have the technical capacity and know-how to use
the intellectual property system. The IP Development Plan was signed on behalf of the
Republic of Ghana, by H.E. Mr Joe Ghartey, Attorney General and Minister for Justice.
WIPO Director General Dr Kamil Idris commented that the plan was a welcomed
development and that it is a comprehensive and coherent approach to establishing a robust IP
framework that would support the country’s development objectives.
Mr Ghartey made comments that the plan was timely as Ghana was on the brink of economic
take-off and puts the country in the right standing within the international business community.
He added that this development plan is beneficial to the exploitation of Ghana’s innovative and
creative assets and an important step towards building a necessary IP capacity for Ghana.
The IP Development Plan includes a range of activities such as legislative advice and
workshops on strategic use of IP, support and advice to promote creative industries, electronic
commerce, copyright collective management etc. Importantly, the plan seeks to enhance the
country’s IP infrastructure through modern technology and automated IP administration
systems to ensure high quality service delivery, extensive training and pubic awareness
programmes.
BRAZIL
16 April 2008 Senate Bill 308 of 2006 was introduced by Senator Antonio Carlos Valadares
aiming to increase the protection of trade marks against the misappropriation of their
reputation, even in cases of non-competing goods or services.
Senator Valadares stated that the current Brazilian Industrial Property Law grants special
protection to trade marks that are considered highly reputable – which is an exception to the
general principles of trade mark law. He further presented that the Bill is necessary to protect
trade marks that are famous but cannot yet be defined or considered as “highly reputable”; as
such marks are vulnerable to acts of competition by non-competing parties misappropriating
the reputation of trade marks.
The Bill as presented will amend the current Industrial Property Law, by adding a single
paragraph extending the prohibition against registration to cases where a mark is intended to
distinguish non-related goods or services, where the holder of a prior registered mark can
prove that the imitation by the mark constitutes unfair competition or damages its corporate
image or reputation.
The Bill will be subject to discussion and voting by the Brazilian Senate and House of
Representatives before receiving final approval.
Page 6 of 31
GERMANY
On 18 October 2008 the German Supreme Court held that the use of a company name can
maintain the protection of the service mark which consists of the distinctive component of the
company name.
The case concerned the trade mark “AKZENTA” which provides insurance services, which
had been used as part of the company name. The mark is translated as “AKZENTA
Company for the Procurement of National and International Insurances Ltd”. A service
mark can be used on the business premises or on goods that are used when the company’s
services are being performed. In the instance whereby the trade mark corresponds to the
distinctive component of the company or business name, the trade mark will be interpreted not
only as the business entity itself but also as the identifier for the particular service the
company offers for which the trade mark is used.
In accordance with the background above, the Supreme Court held that the use of the service
mark “AKZENTA” as shown on their business cards, stationary and invoices had been
sufficient to establish a genuine use of the mark because:
(1) The distinctive component “AKZENTA” was emphasised by the size, colour and script
; and
(2) The service provided was expressly mentioned in the overall designation, namely as a
business indication within the company name.
This recent Supreme Court decision provides an easier avenue for trade mark owners of
service marks to prove the genuine use of their trade mark by way of dual use of the mark and
company name. Therefore, if the trade mark in question corresponds with the company name,
the use of the company name clearly indicative of the distinctive component will be considered
as trade mark use.
INDIA
M/s Cipla Limited vs M.K. Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court held that in India, there cannot be monopoly over colour, form of
packaging and shape of tablets; and that drug manufacturers are at liberty to manufacture
tablets in any shape, colour and use any form of packaging they desire.
The plaintiff in this case sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from marketing
its product “NORFLOXACIN” in an oval shaped, orange coloured tablets in blister packaging.
The plaintiff had been manufacturing tablets under the trade name “NORFLOX-400” and
marketed those tablets in blister packaging with an oval shape and orange colour. The
defendant marketed their tablets under the trade name “NORFLOX400” in the same
packaging and colour and shape. The two issues the High Court dealt with were:
(1) Whether the distinctiveness of medicines were in their name or in their colour, shape
and packaging; and
(2) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from
marketing its medicine in the same oval shape, orange colour and blister packaging.
Page 7 of 31
The High Court held that there could be no monopoly over a particular form of packaging or
the colour and shape of the tablets. The packaging used was common and is used in almost
50% of the tablets in the market place. Further, the court held that because the plaintiff merely
started using a particular colour did not mean that it had obtained a monopoly over the colour.
The colour can be associated with any brand and the shape of the tablets is not associated in
any way with the quality of the tablets or with the nature of the medicine. It was commented
that the shape of tablets are usually round, oval or cylindrical in shape for easy swallowing.
Even in the event that the defendant had in fact copied the plaintiff’s shape, colour and
packaging of the tablets, the court stated that it would not amount to passing off, since colour
and shape are not indicative of the drugs and are not associated with the trade mark. The
plaintiff’s application was dismissed.
INDIA
Rich Products Corporation and Another vs Indo Nippon Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court held in this case that a trade mark needs to be considered in
determining deceptive similarity, when the issue of “common trade words” are used.
The plaintiff filed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “BELLS
WHIP TOPPING”, alleging it to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark
“RICH’S WHIP TOPPING”. The plaintiff’s trade mark had been registered in India since 1991
under Class 30 over “non-dairy toppings, icings, fillings and other goods”. The defendant, had,
on the other hand, registered its trade mark in India since 1995 over similar goods.
The court had to consider whether the expression “WHIP TOPPING” was a generic term; and
whether the defendant’s use of their trade mark had in fact infringed the plaintiff’s mark.
The court held that the plaintiff did not have exclusivity of the generic expression “WHIP
TOPPING”, as it had come to be descriptive of the topping concerned, but had exclusivity over
the expressions “RICH’S”; and also “RICH’S WHIP TOPPING” as a whole. The plaintiff’s mark
should be viewed as a whole and not fragmented into separate words. The distinguishing
elements in the parties’ trade marks were respectively “RICH’S” and “BELLS”, respectively,
which words bore no similarity whatsoever.
The court held that the defendant had no infringed the plaintiff’s trade mark nor had it passed
off its goods as those of the plaintiffs. They dismissed the application and refused the order of
an interim injunction.
ISRAEL BOYCOTT DECLARATION NO LONGER REQUIRED IN SYRIA
DAMASCUS
Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji Al-Otari approved on 4 June 2008, Directive No.
4964/1, to exempt all new trade mark, patent, industrial drawing and design applications from
the Israel Boycott Declaration’s requirement.
Accordingly, all foreign first-time applicants, who are not listed on the Boycott List, can now file
their applications in Syria without the need to provide the Boycott Declaration. The Premier’s
approval came in response to a recommendation suggested by the Economic Committee in
May 2008.
Page 8 of 31
SPECIAL INTEREST ARTICLE
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v
Wong Bark Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR 663
Court: Court of Appeal, Singapore
Coram: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, V K Rajah JA
On 29 November 2007, the learned Court of Appeal issued its grounds of decision in relation
to the application by an ex-employee of Man Financial (“Man”), one David Wong (“Wong”) to
claim payment from Man even after he had firstly solicited the employment of Man’s existing
employees; and provided services in competition to Man to Man’s clients. The grounds of
decision have made clear several issues relating to Restraint of Trade clauses in employment
agreements and may have great impact on how you may wish to draft your new employment
agreements or modify your existing employment agreements. Please do contact any of our
lawyers for advice or write to [email protected] for more information.
Facts:
Wong was the managing director and CEO of Man, a brokerage company. One day he was
told to resign with immediate effect and was placed on “garden leave” while he served out a
three-month notice period. This meant that he was not required to attend at Man’s office any
more. Wong was also handed a proposed termination agreement which contained restrictive
covenants on non-solicitation and non-competition for a period of one year from the
Termination Date. However, Wong did not agree to the provisions suggested by the appellant
and did not sign the agreement. After many rounds of negotiation between the parties on
terms, an agreement was finally executed (the “Termination Agreement”).
Under the Termination Agreement, Wong was prohibited from
(1)
(2)
soliciting the employment of certain Man employees for a period of seven months
from the Termination Date under Clause C.1 of the Termination Agreement; and
participating in or rendering advice to a competitor of Man for a period of seven
months from the Termination Date under Clause C.3 of the Termination Agreement.
Salient parts of the Clauses above are reproduced as follows:
C.1.
… you agree that for a period of seven (7) months from the Termination Date, that is,
up to 13 January 2006 you shall not directly or indirectly employ or solicit the
employment of (whether as an employee, officer, director, agent or consultant) any
person who is or was at any time during the period 13 June 2004 to 13 June 2005 an
officer, director, representative or employee of the Company…
C.3.
… you agree that you will not either directly or indirectly for a period of seven (7)
months from the Termination Date, that is up to 13 January 2006, anywhere in the
world, organize, own, manage, operate, participate in, render advice to, control, or
have an investment or ownership interest in any business that engages in the
marketing and/or sale of products, services and/or systems which are in competition
with those provided by the Company.
Page 9 of 31
The agreement further provided that Wong would receive a payment from Man if he did not
breach the terms of the Termination Agreement. However, Wong breached both C.1 and C.3
of the Termination Agreement and Man therefore declined to pay. Wong sued Man for the
payment.
Court of Appeal decision:
The Court exhaustively considered the following issues:
(1)
Does the doctrine of restraint of trade apply to the Termination Agreement?
Counsel for Man argued that since there were disagreements between the parties as to the
terms of the Termination Agreement as initially drafted, and the final form of the Termination
Agreement was essentially the result of compromises struck between the parties as to the
terms thereof, the Termination Agreement was essentially an agreement which evidenced a
settlement of a dispute between the parties. He also argued that since the Termination
Agreement was a settlement agreement and not an employment agreement, the public policy
reasons against restraint of trade should not be considered when determining the
reasonableness of the restraints contained therein.
The Court rejected this argument. It held that the Termination Agreement cannot be a
settlement agreement because the restraint of trade clauses did not exist in the original
employment contract but constituted terms within the Termination Agreement only.
Accordingly, they were, “fresh or new terms in a fresh or new contract” which supplemented
the original employment contract. “In other words, these clauses were neither the subject of a
prior legal dispute which had been settled, nor agreed on to compromise an existing dispute,
by way of the Termination Agreement.”
“We are therefore of the view that the Termination Agreement in the
present appeal was not, in substance, a settlement agreement to begin
with. It was instead, in substance and effect, an agreement that was
complementary to the original employment contract between the
appellant and the respondent. In the circumstances, all the terms of the
Termination Agreement must – in the present appeal at least – therefore
be subject to the doctrine of restraint of trade.”
In any event, the Court, as a matter of interest, proceeded to consider the related question:
Does the doctrine of restraint of trade apply to settlement agreements?
The Court was of the opinion that in analysing this issue, there are, in effect, two separate and
distinct facets of public policy to be considered – one relating to the doctrine of restraint of
trade, and the other relating to the upholding of genuine settlement or compromise
agreements.
Page 10 of 31
The first doctrine (“Public Policy 1”) seeks to vindicate the legal right to freedom of trade while
balancing, at the same time, the countervailing doctrine of freedom of contract. Covenants that
fall foul of the doctrine of restraint of trade will (subject to certain conditions) be rendered
unenforceable. To that extent, the doctrine endorses the public policy which legally negates
attempts to unreasonably restrict freedom of trade. It should also be noted that, when
comparing restraint of trade covenants in the employment context with those in the other wellestablished scenario where restraint of trade likewise features (for example, in the context of
the sale of a business), the courts scrutinise the covenants in the employment context far
more strictly. The reasons for this include the following:
First, unlike contracts of employment, the purchaser in a sale of business of context in whose
favour the covenant is made is buying something tangible, which includes (very importantly)
the element of goodwill which would be necessarily depreciated if no restrictive covenant were
permitted. An employer, on the other hand, would not be deprived of what he has paid for
pursuant to the contract of employment (the employee’s services) when the employee leaves
his employ, although there are other legitimate proprietary interests that may merit protection
even within this context; and
Secondly, there is likely to be more equality of bargaining power in the case of the sale of a
business compared to an employment contract situation; in the latter, there is, more often than
not, a disparity in bargaining power between the employer on the one hand and the employee
on the other.
The second doctrine (“Public Policy 2”) raises the question of whether or not, assuming there
has been a genuine settlement or compromise agreement vis-à-vis disputes over covenants
or clauses in restraint of trade in an existing contract, that settlement or compromise
agreement can be reopened by way of the application of the doctrine of restraint of trade.
The Court held that Public Policy 1 does apply to settlement agreements. However it
approved of the reasoning in the English High Court decision of Panayiotou v Sony Music
Entertainment (UK) Limited [1994] EMLR 229. In that case, there was a clear endorsement of
Public Policy 2 in preference to Public Policy 1. Jonathan Parker J held that, notwithstanding
the fact that the doctrine of restraint of trade would ordinarily apply to covenants or clauses in
restraint of trade in employment contracts, where such covenants or clauses were the
outcome of settlement or compromise of proceedings, there was “a clear public interest in
upholding genuine and proper compromises”.
The Court then laid down its own test on when Public Policy 1 may be “trumped” by Public
Policy 2
“In our view, Public Policy 2 overrides or trumps Public Policy 1 only
where the following conditions are cumulatively met:
(a) The settlement or compromise agreement relates to the settlement or
compromise of a prior dispute over a covenant or clause in restraint of
trade in an existing contract.
(b) The settlement or compromise agreement itself is not tainted by one
or more vitiating factors.”
“Vitiating factors”
unconscionability.
Page 11 of 31
may
include
factors
such
as
duress,
undue
influence
and/or
(2)
Was Clause C.1 reasonable within the applicable principles relating to the
doctrine of restraint of trade?
The Court agreed with this statement of the law in relation to the doctrine:
“all covenants in restraint of trade are prima facie void, but may be shown
to be valid if reasonable in the interests of the parties and in the interests
of the public ... In other words, the foundational concept is now
reasonableness which, in turn, has two sub-aspects or facets, in that to
pass muster, the clause concerned must first be reasonable in the
interests of the parties and, secondly, the clause must also be
reasonable in the interests of the public. It is suggested that this
dichotomy is in fact a reflection of the tension … between the need to
maintain the individual parties’ autonomy (particularly that of the
covenantor as embodied under the classic rubric of freedom of contract)
and the wider need to protect the public interest.”
In light of the foregoing statement, the Court opined that therefore even if a restraint of trade
clause is reasonable as between the parties, if the exercise of restraint of trade would, for
example, lead to there being a monopoly in the market which would be to the detriment of the
public, such a clause would be void.
The Court also held that there cannot be a bare and blatant restriction of the freedom to trade
(commonly referred to as a “covenant in gross”). There must always – and this is a
fundamental legal proposition in this particular area of the law – be a legitimate proprietary
interest which the court will then seek to protect by way of the doctrine of restraint of trade.
However, even where a legitimate proprietary interest is shown, the court will ensure that the
covenant in restraint of trade goes no further than what is necessary to protect the interest
concerned.
Legitimate proprietary interests which the Court accepted exists, include:
(a)
Trade secrets
In this regard, trade secrets must be protected whether during or after the term of employment
of the employee. However, where the confidential information in question fell short of
constituting a trade secret, such information, although not permitted to be disclosed or used by
the employee whilst still within the employ of the employer, could be disclosed or used after
the contract of employment came to an end.
The extent of the protection over trade secrets imposed against an employee would have to
be commensurate with:
(i)
The nature of the employment – where the employee habitually handles confidential
information, a higher obligation of confidentiality may be imposed.
(ii)
The nature of the information itself – in this regard, the information concerned must be
a trade secret or material which, whilst not properly described as a trade secret as
such, is, having regard to all the various circumstances, “of such a highly confidential
nature as to require the same protection as a trade secret”.
Page 12 of 31
(iii)
Whether the employer impressed on the employee the confidentiality of the
information – in order to prevent the use or disclosure of the information in question, it
was insufficient for the employer to merely tell the employee that the information was
confidential. The employer’s attitude towards the information itself had to be
considered as well.
(iv)
Whether the relevant information can be easily isolated from other information which
the employee is free to disclose – where the information alleged to be confidential is
“part of a package” and the remainder of the package is not confidential, this factor,
although not conclusive in itself, can shed light on whether the information in question
is truly a trade secret.
(b)
Trade connection in the employment context
In this regard, restraint of trade against employees with “personal knowledge of (and influence
over) the customers of the employer” would be legitimate.
(c)
Employer’s interest to maintain a stable, trained workforce
Counsel for Man argued that employers have a legitimate proprietary interest in the
maintenance of a stable, trained workforce. As a result, it was argued, Clause C.1 should be
held to be reasonable and thus enforceable. The Court agreed that the interest in the
maintenance of a stable, trained workforce is a legitimate proprietary interest.
“It is axiomatic that the law must develop consistently with changes in the
wider society which it ultimately serves. However, the courts must also
not lose sight of the fact that legal development must balance all interests
concerned in order to achieve a just and fair result. To this end, whilst a
modern trend in the employment context has been an emphasis on
employees’ freedom to work for whomever they wish, this trend must also
be balanced against the need on the part of employers to ensure that
there is no undue disruption to their workforce. If, therefore, employers
seek to safeguard their needs in this particular regard via non-solicitation
clauses, there is no reason, in principle and logic, why such clauses
ought not to be legally enforceable if they are reasonable and if the
employees concerned have not agreed to them as a result of the
operation of one or more vitiating factors. At bottom, such an approach
reflects the same basis upon which the doctrine of restraint of trade, as
we know it today, was developed. However, it bears reiterating that
everything ultimately depends upon the precise factual matrix before the
court. Indeed, the very concept of reasonableness itself – which is central
to the doctrine of restraint of trade – necessarily entails a close analysis
of the relevant facts.”
Page 13 of 31
Turning its attention to the facts of this case, the Court noted that Clause C.1 must be
reasonable not only as between the parties, but also in the interests of the public as well
before it will be upheld. In this regard the Court held that it is in the interests of the public to
uphold the validity of covenants in restraint of trade where such covenants are agreed to
pursuant to the settlement or compromise of existing disputes. However, there is also the first
aspect of reasonableness that Clause C.1 must satisfy as well. It was clear from the evidence
that Wong, by virtue of his position and influence whilst in the employ of Man, possessed –
and, more importantly, utilised – confidential knowledge gained in the course of his
employment (in particular, knowledge relating to the relationship between the employees
concerned and Man) to solicit the employment of those employees. Further, whilst training is a
relevant factor, it is not conclusive. The main focus ought still to be on whether or not there is
a legitimate proprietary interest in Man maintaining a stable, trained workforce. Given the
nature of Man’s business, the Court was of the view that there was indeed such an interest in
the present case – and this was a fortiori the case in the light of Wong’s access to and use of
confidential knowledge gained in the course of his employment.
In light of the foregoing, and also since the Termination Agreement was entered into between
the parties only after several rounds of negotiation, the Court concluded that the restraint
against solicitation was reasonable as between the parties. The Court then considered that
looked at in context, it is clear that Clause C.1 was not intended by Man and Wong (who in
fact held extremely high positions in the former) to apply to peripheral support staff. Instead,
that particular clause was intended to prohibit only the solicitation of Man’s senior staff,
particularly those who were in contact with Wong during his stint as the managing director and
CEO of Man. Therefore as the restriction was not on all employees in general, the Court also
concluded that the restraint was reasonable when considering the interests of the public.
In the circumstances, Man was, in the light of Wong’s breach of Clause C.1 as well as the
Court’s finding that that particular clause was a condition of the Termination Agreement,
entitled to terminate the contract. It follows, therefore, that Wong could not enforce his claim
for the Compensation under the Termination Agreement.
The Court also held that it is trite law that there is an implied term in the employer’s favour that
the employee will serve the employer with good faith and fidelity, and that he or she (the
employee) will also use reasonable care and skill in the performance of his or her duties
pursuant to the employment contract.
Clause C.3 could not be invoked to disentitle Wong from claiming the compensation. There
was insufficient evidence adduced by Man to demonstrate an underlying legitimate proprietary
interest which Clause C.3 was intended to protect. Clause C.3 was also far too wide,
particularly with regard to the area covered. For example the way the clause was phrased, it
was wide enough even to prohibit the respondent from buying shares in a competitor which
was listed on a stock exchange, even though such conduct would not necessarily involve
misuse of the appellant’s confidential information.
Page 14 of 31
OFFICE HAPPENINGS
JUNAIDAH’S WEDDING!
Wedding Announcement
We are pleased to announce the marriage of our valued employee, Ms Junaidah Arifin, to Mr
Noor Indra Bin Ismail on 17-18 May 2008. Our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to
the couple!
SHAHIRAN’S BABY GIRL!
Birth Announcement
We are pleased to announce the birth of a baby girl, Deanna, to Mr Shahiran Ibrahim and his
wife Sarah. Congratulations to the both of them on the new addition to their lovely family!
Page 15 of 31
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
SAE INSTITUTE SINGAPORE 17 April 2008
On 17 April 2008, a seminar on Intellectual Property (IP) was held at SAE Institute
Singapore. The seminar was presented by our Samuel Seow to a group of enthusiastic and
receptive students who had come to study at SAE from all parts of the world.
Attended by more than 80 students and staff from all departments, the presentation, which
lasted almost 3 hours, covered topics on IP with an emphasis on Copyrights and Trade Marks.
Always a true entertainer and presenter, Samuel held a lively Q&A with many students keen to
hear his perspective and learn from his knowledge of the law and industry.
CREATIVE ENTREPRENEUR PROGRAMME 2008
The Creative Entrepreneur Programme (CEP) is jointly developed by Creative Community
Singapore (CCS) and Workforce Development Agency (WDA) based on the Creative
Industries Workforce Skills Qualification (CI WSQ) framework in partnership with the UK
Creative Industries Development Agency (CIDA) and NUS Extensions (NEX).
The Programme aims to nurture the enterprise capabilities of creative people to help them
develop skills like Intellectual Property Management, market research, business planning,
production, marketing, sales and distribution in a more commercial context. Our Ms Trina Ha
and Mr Samuel Seow were engaged to conduct the modules for participants on
“Understanding Intellectual Property Rights” and “Exploiting Intellectual Property” on 8 May
and 13 May respectively.
NATIONAL BOOK COUNCIL
Workshops for Centre for Literary Arts and Publishing (CLAP)
Our Ms Trina Ha who is a trainer for CLAP, an initiative of the National Book Council will be
conducting the following workshops for the National Book Council:
“Intellectual Property Rights in the Publishing Industry”
This 1-day workshop will introduce participants to the concept of intellectual property rights
and the different branches of intellectual property. Participants will gain an understanding of
how different intellectual property rights can arise and be protected, particularly in the
publishing industry.
Date: 13 June 2008 (Fri), 9.30am – 5.30pm
Venue: Blue Room, Level 2, The Arts House, 1 Old Parliament Lane
Fee:
S$250 per person
“Contracts & Rights for Writers”
This workshop will introduce participants to the basics of contract law. Participants will also
learn to understand and identify the different rights that exist in publishing and the relevant
clauses in publishing contracts. The trainer will discuss what constitutes a legally binding
agreement and go through sample clauses in publishing contracts.
Date: 4 July 2008 (Fri), 10.00am – 1.00pm
Venue: Agatha Room, Level 3, Toa Payoh Community Library
Fee:
S$95 per person (S$80 for Early Birds who register by 6 June 2008)
FOR REGISTRATION:
Visit http://www.bookcouncil.sg/clap.htm
Page 16 of 31
EVENTS AND HAPPENINGS
HANGZHOU TRIP
th
4 CHINA INTERNATIONAL CARTOON AND ANIMATION FESTIVAL
th
The 4 China International Cartoon and Animation Festival (CICAF) was held in Hangzhou
from 28 April to 1 May 2008. Our Mr Samuel Seow and Ms Trina Ha attended the CICAF at
the invitation of our client, Chinanimax, as part of an international delegation.
Chinanimax is the authorized worldwide distributor of the Zhejiang Zhongnan Group
Animation Video Co., Ltd (ZN Animation).
Samuel and Trina also had the privilege of touring ZN Animation’s production studio located in
Hangzhou. Besides visiting the production facilities, they also watched clips of ZN Animation’s
various animation programmes, including “Magic Wonderland” which received the “2008 Best
of Show: Animation/Cartoon” at the Accolade TV Awards held in La Jolla, CA, USA this year.
Page 17 of 31
THE NEW ZEALAND FILM FESTIVAL@ GV ViVOCITY
The New Zealand Film Festival 2008 was presented by New Zealand Trade & Enterprise and
the Festival ran from 9 to 12 May at Cinema Europa, GV VivoCity. Our Mr Marcus Liew was
invited to attend the screening of The Flight of the Conchords, an HBO Original series. The
series follows the adventures of the Flight of the Conchords, a novelty-folk band from New
Zealand, as its members seek fame and success in New York City.
INTA BERLIN TRIP
th
INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKS ASSOCIATION 130 ANNUAL MEETING – BERLIN,
GERMANY
This year’s annual INTA meeting was held in the beautiful city of Berlin between 17-21 May
2008. This global meeting is the largest gathering of associates, friends, trade mark owners
and professionals in the world. The meeting will bring together more than 8,000 participants
from more than 140 countries. During the meeting, it will feature educational sessions,
discussion forums, guest speakers and of course the fun side of proceedings, the networking
sessions.
The 2008 meeting featured keynote speaker Executive Vice President of Henkel KGaA, Hans
Van Bylen who spoke on Sunday 18 May 2008. Henkel KGaA ranks amongst Fortune Global
500 companies and has major businesses in the areas of home care, personal care and
adhesive technologies.
Our Mr Samuel Seow and Mr Marcus Liew attended the meeting and took the opportunity to
meet and reacquaint with our many associates and friends around the world, discussing our
future working relationships and expanding our networks across the globe. It was also an
occasion to make new friends and promote the business and economic advantages of
Singapore and boast of the strong developments in our media and entertainment industry. We
continue to build strong relations around the region and new territories in Europe and the
United States.
Next year’s annual INTA meeting will be held in Seattle, USA.
Page 18 of 31
HERMES PRESENTS ART INSTALLATION “THE END IS THE BEGINNING IS THE END”
Inspired by the last paragraphs found in a selection of novels read in the past year,
international conceptual artist and curator, Herman Chong continues with his investigation
into the reasons and methods where individuals imagine the future and how it can be
represented as a series of conceptually generated objects, situations and texts.
This is the first solo presentation of Chong's work in Singapore since 2004. He was awarded
the President's Young Talent Exhibition at the Singapore Art Museum in 2003 and the Young
Artist Award by the National Arts Council in 2005. Chong represented Singapore at the Venice
Biennale in 2003.
Our Ms Stella Teo was in attendance at the opening of the exhibition on 21 May 2008. The
exhibition continues from 22 May through 13 July 2008 on the Third Floor, Hermes, Liat
Towers.
CALVIN KLEIN UNDERWEAR PEEP SHOW AT TANGS
Calvin Klein underwear invited an enthusiastic contingent from Samuel Seow Law
Corporation, consisting of our Mr Benjamin Mak, Ms Shereen Ong and Ms Josephine
Poh, to the launch of their new Black Steel & Steel Gold Limited Edition on the 23rd of May.
Models and mannequins stood inside the live fish tank erected at the main plaza of Tangs to
promote the new range of cool metal-inspired underwear.
SINGAPORE STREET FESTIVAL 08 – STREET REVOLUTION
This year’s Singapore Street Festival was held from 24 May to 8 June 2008 to great
success. The opening ceremony on 24 May was held at Suntec City with its patron, Dr
Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of Community Development, Youth and Sports, as the guestof-honour. The performances at the ceremony included Singapore’s only male belly dancer
Darren Ho, singer Erik Guansing, the winner of the Festival’s singing competition in 2004;
and the first artiste to be groomed by and through the Festival.
The closing of the festival was held at Plaza Singapura with outstanding performances from
the winners of the different categories and continued long into the night to a large and
appreciative crowd.
The Singapore Street Festival is an annual social and community project, aimed at creating a
platform for local talents in the performing arts, visual art forms, lifestyle trends (including
fashion), entrepreneurship, technology, health and environment. The founder, veteran show
producer and our dear client and close friend, Ms Annie Pek, is also raising support for a
training centre to nurture and develop local youth talents and create an avenue for exchange
of ideas and collaborations between local and foreign talents.
Page 19 of 31
Samuel Seow Law Corporation is proud to be a supporter of this festival, and salutes Annie
and her staff for what is in our opinion the best Festival ever. Annie has gone through so
much and sacrificed so much to bring this Festival to life, and to make it increasingly relevant
to youth in Singapore and, now, worldwide. Through the years, we have seen the Festival
grow before our eyes and have been privileged to obtain a backstage view of Annie’s striving
through hard times to conceive, deliver and groom this baby of hers to the gargantuan
success it is today. Annie tackles all difficulties, even those which may have crushed lesser
beings, always with her trademark resolution and drive, with an undying faith. We salute you
Annie, and pledge our support for your cause.
Please visit the website, http://www.singaporestreetfestival.com/index.html, for more details
Photo Courtesy of Singapore Street Festival
Photo Courtesy of Singapore Street Festival
Photo Courtesy of Singapore Street Festival
Page 20 of 31
AN EVENING WITH DIN TAI FUNG AT EMILY HILL
Ranked as one of the Top Ten restaurants worldwide by The New York Times, Din Tai
Fung’s history dates back to 1972 when its first eatery opened in Taiwan.
As a special treat for delegates and a few special guests of The Theatre Training and
Research Programme at the inaugural Asian Intercultural Conference in Singapore, Din
Tai Fung served out its signature steamed pork dumplings and other culinary delights at Emily
Hill on 29 May 2008.
Our Mr Samuel Seow and Ms Stella Teo thank Din Tai Fung and Emily Hill Enterprise for
inviting us to join in the festivities.
Page 21 of 31
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY – UNDER NO ROOF 2008: WHERE HOPE BEGINS
th
th
Over 2 days on the 7 and 8 of June, our client, Habitat for Humanity held an event to give
approximately over 200 students the experience of homelessness, but more importantly to
raise public awareness and garner support for the issue of global poverty.
The Under No Roof initiative enters its sixth year this year and was held outdoors at The
Plaza, VivoCity. Selected students braved the challenge of sleeping under the stars, using
only cardboard “houses” as shelter.
This year’s event generated even greater response in light of the recent devastation of the
earthquake in Sichuan, China last month. As of 11 June 2008, the official death toll from the
quake, which registered 8.0 on the Richter scale, was 69,146, with 17,516 people still missing.
Samuel Seow Law Corporation sought this chance to show our support for our friends in
China, and roped in our celebrity friends to help Habitat for Humanity spread its message this
year. We were so pleased to see our clients respond with love to our call for help. The ever
effervescent Marcus Chin hosted the opening ceremony, which also featured a performance
by Olivia Ong, our local girl made good in Japan and around the world with her brand of
bossa nova. Marcus even voluntarily sought donations from his own circle of clients in aid of
the cause.
At the closing ceremony, the team from Funkie Monkies, Eric Ng, Wu Jiahui and Jim Lim
sang their songs to rally support for the cause. One song which most struck a chord was one
written by Eric, with lyrics by Xiaohan – “One Tile, One Brick” – which sang of having faith and
holding on despite adversity. In our hearts and minds, the plight of our friends in China was
our priority.
Other celebrities who gave up their Sunday afternoon to participate were Paul Foster (host),
Joanna Dong, Shan Wee, Robin Leong, Daphne Khoo along with Nicole Chen - Miss
Earth Singapore 2007 - and contestants from the Miss Earth Singapore Pageant 2008.
They were in attendance to help the students to build houses with cardboard bricks, symbolic
of the actual building work which Habitat for Humanity will soon be engaged in to help the
victims of the earthquake. Celebrity photographer and our friend Lawrence Ripsher who was
responsible for the beautiful photographic stills used in The Contender Asia show, was also
in attendance as the official photographer for the event.
We take this opportunity to thank them all for their invaluable contributions as their presence
certainly raised the student’s morale after a long hot day in the sun constructing the cardboard
brick homes. Our celebrities assisted the students in their teams to build these houses and
below we feature them in the thick of the action.
Samuel Seow Law Corporation was also pleased to make a donation towards the building of
an actual home in China. We also pay tribute to our friends, the Singapore Artistes
Association and Mr Eldee Tang for their sponsorships of two homes.
Guests of honour at the event included Mr S Dhanabalan, chairman of Temasek Holdings,
Ms Amy Lee, chairperson of Habitat for Humanity, Mdm Zhou Jian Ping, counsellor for
education of the embassy of the People’s Republic of China, Mr Bai Yanlei, second secretary
for the embassy of the People’s Republic of China, Mr Benjamin Khoo, sales and marketing
manager for Cathay Pacific, Mr Chang Yeng Cheong, general manager of VivoCity and Mrs
Ang from Victoria Junior College.
Page 22 of 31
Overall, this was an extremely successful event for a worthy cause and we hope to continue to
support Habitat for Humanity as their legal partner in their future events and programmes. If
you would like to find out more about how you can support Habitat, please contact us.
Photos Courtesy of Lawrence Ripsher
Page 23 of 31
SCREENING OF SINGAPORE CO-PRODUCTION FEATURE FILM “THE MISSING STAR”
AT THE ITALIAN FILM FESTIVAL
Our client, Oak3 Films’ co-production feature film “The Missing Star (La Stella che non
c’e)” made its Singapore debut at the Italian Film Festival held at the Picturehouse. Our Ms
Trina Ha attended the screening on 8 June 2008. Directed by award-winning Italian director,
Mr Gianni Amelio, the film traces the odyssey of an Italian maintenance worker through
China to track down a blast furnace purchased by a Chinese factory so as to rectify a flaw in
the equipment. The film is a co-production between Oak3 Films, Cattleya Films, Babe
Films and Carac Films and is supported by the Media Development Authority. It premiered
to a worldwide audience at the 2006 Venice Film Festival and was also screened at the
Toronto Film Festival in the Masters Section.
Photo Courtesy of Oak3 Films Pte Ltd
SINGAPORE FILM COMMISSION CELEBRATES ITS 10
TH
ANNIVERSARY
Members of the film and media industry in Singapore came together on 11 June 2008 at
th
Fashion Bar to celebrate the Singapore Film Commission’s (SFC) 10 Anniversary. Our Mr
Samuel Seow, Ms Trina Ha and Ms Stella Teo were in attendance to join in the festivities.
SFC marked its 10th anniversary by launching the New Feature Film Fund. Mr Kenneth Tan
– Director of the SFC; and the Media Development Authority’s Chief Operating Officer announced the scheme which aims to provide emerging talent, particularly first-time
Singapore filmmakers, with the opportunity to direct their feature film in collaboration with
experienced film production companies. By partnering the filmmaker with a producer,
experienced producers are able to guide the filmmaker through the production process.
Besides co-investment in terms of production costs, the scheme also offers up to S$20,000 in
funding for first time feature film directors to market their film upon completion. SFC has also
teamed up with cinema chain and distributor Golden Village to ensure that films funded under
this scheme will be guaranteed theatrical exhibition within Singapore.
Photos Courtesy of Media Development Authority
Page 24 of 31
THE OPENING OF MONTH OF PHOTOGRAPHY ASIA 2008:
13 June 2008 marked the launch of The Month of Photography Asia 2008.
Attended by our Mr Benjamin Mak and Ms Stella Teo, the invitation-only event was a
wonderful mix of photography and film. Special guest Abbas, the renowned Magnum
Photographer, graced this extraordinary event and mingled with the guests. After the
reception, guests were treated to a special screening of “Persepolis”.
Set in Iran in the 1970’s, “Persepolis” is a poignant, coming-of-age tale of an outspoken
Iranian girl during the Iranian Revolution, who experiences the tribulations of studying abroad
and being an outsider, as well as the consequences that follow.
th
The event was also held in association with Elle’s 15 Anniversary, which proved to be a great
success. One of the highlights of the evening was the cameo appearances of “Marilyn
Monroe”, “Audrey Hepburn” and “Austin Powers” lookalikes, who hammed it up for the
cameras.
With a dress code obliging all in attendance to be decked in “Cinema Glamour”, this exclusive
event was nothing short of Magical.
CHEC ANNUAL FOTO EXHIBITION & BURSARY AWARD CEREMONY 2008
On 18 June 2008, our client and friend, the City Harvest Education Centre (CHEC) held its
annual bursary award ceremony together with a photography exhibition of works taken by
students and their teachers from the school’s photography club. Our Ms Trina Ha and Mr
Benjamin Mak were privileged to attend this ceremony and exhibition. Twenty bursary
awards were given out and there were well-received performances by members of the
school’s vocal and guitar club. A touching photo tribute to the principal, Mr Kenny Low, and
teachers was also given by two of the graduating students.
CHEC is a private educational centre registered with the Ministry of Education and accredited
under CaseTrust. The aim of CHEC is to provide effective and affordable education to private
candidates taking the GCE 'N' and 'O' level examinations. The school strongly believes in the
potential of every student to learn and excel and invests in creating a culture of lifelong
learning.
Page 25 of 31
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL STORY TELLING FESTIVAL (SISF)
SISF returns this year from 25 August to 9 September to delight audiences with its vast
repository of engaging offerings. Since the inauguration of 2006, the annual festival has
attracted more than 200,000 visitors with its programmes for teachers, librarians, storytellers,
social workers, professionals, performers, writers, parents and children. For more information,
please visit www.bookcouncil.sg/sisf.
Photo Courtesy of National Book Development Council of Singapore
Page 26 of 31
JAYMEE ONG ON SPA SEEKERS
Kosmic Film Entertainment artistes Jaymee Ong and her sister Lindsay host Spa Seekers,
which sees these intrepid beauties traveling around the Asian region in search of the best
spas.
Spa Seekers was aired in USA to a highly positive response last year and the sisters team up
again for a continuation of the programme which embarks on filming this month.
MAX LOONG HOSTS THE SPORT OF KINGS
Hosting the upcoming MediaCorp documentary special The Sport of Kings, Kosmic Film
Entertainment artiste Max Loong looks behind the misconceptions of horse racing and
explores the Singapore Turf Club. This unique insight into the elite sport of horse racing is
set to be released on Singapore free-to-air giant MediaCorp this year.
SINGAPORE SING
“Singapore Sing” is the name of an in-house team-building programme that uses choral
singing and performing to energize, motivate and inspire employees. Several in-house
sessions conducted by our client, the talented Australian singer, Ms Corinne Gibbons, and
her team, teach songs to teams of employees, get them used to hearing themselves sing
together and rehearse the arrangements. The highlight of each programme is a team
performance presented by the participants.
Through its programmes, singing becomes a non-competitive tool where together everyone
can be part of creating a really special musical experience ... building harmony through
harmony!
So, if your company or anyone else you know may need a new and innovative team-building
program ... you might want to try Singapore Sing!
Find out more at www.singaporesing.com.
Photos Courtesy of Singapore Sing
Page 27 of 31
CHOCOLATE GALA PREMIERE AT CATHAY CINELEISURE
Directed by Thai Director Prachya Pinkaew of Ong Bak and Tom Yam Gong fame,
“Chocolate” is a Muay Thai movie. Following the action-packed tradition of its predecessors,
“Chocolate” serves as a treat with a twist – the lead character is a young female fighter,
played by “Jija” Yanin Vismistananda!
Jija plays Zen who is autistic in nature but compensates with agility and picks up Muay Thai
through watching television and from observing others training at the Muay Thai academy next
door. Jija was in Singapore on 8 May 2008 for the gala premiere where she showed fans a
move or two.
JASON LAI WINS THE TOP PRIZE AT THIS YEAR’S BUSAN ASIAN SHORT FILM
FESTIVAL
Co-founder of our long time friends and clients, Oak3 Films, director Jason Lai bagged the
top prize at this year’s Busan Asian Short Film Festival. His 31 minute documentary ‘The
Trouble with Waiting’ was awarded the Dong-Back Grand Award for best Asian short film at
the prestigious South Korean festival.
SUN HO PERFORMS ‘LIVE” AT LIFE BALL
th
On 17 May 2008, Europe's biggest and most spectacular AIDS-charity event—the 16 Life
Ball—took place in Vienna. Organised by AIDS Life, a fund-raising organisation, Life Ball is an
annual event that brings together national and international artists to raise public awareness of
HIV and AIDS and to support those who are affected. The funds raised at Life Ball are
allocated to national projects dedicated to people infected with HIV and AIDS patients, as well
as channelled into a variety of international projects and distributed by amfAR (American
Foundation for AIDS Research).
Our client and friend, Sun Ho, was invited to perform at this event. Sun shared the stage with
legendary Blondie singer Debbie Harry; and Jody Watley, one of the most famous R&B
singers of all time. The event was also well-turned out by other celebrities such as Sharon
Stone, Linda Evangelista, Kim Cattrall, Rose McGowan as well as numerous national and
international famous personalities, all supporting the Life Ball in its fight against HIV/AIDS.
Photos Courtesy of Tinsel Entertainment Asia Pte Ltd
Page 28 of 31
MUSICAL THEATRE LIMITED’S MUSICTODAY ANNUAL SEMINAR
A team from Musical Theatre Limited were at Pasir Ris Crest Secondary School on 30
May where a MusicToday annual seminar was held for Music Teachers in Singapore MOE
Schools.
Musical Theatre Limited’s mission to promote musicals and help music teachers appreciate
music and song-writing is one of their many exciting projects. To find out more, please visit:
http://www.musicals.org.sg/
Samuel Seow Law Corporation is a proud supporter of Musical Theatre Limited.
“DANCE OF THE DRAGON” GOES INTERNATIONAL
Photos Courtesy of Silk Road Pictures
The first feature film of our clients and friends at Silk Road Pictures, “Dance of the Dragon”
has been sold internationally to distributors in Japan, Korea and Malaysia. The Singaporean
production will make its theatre debut in Asia from mid August 2008, immediately after its
International Premiere at two key film festivals in the USA.
The film has been selected to open the inaugural West Hollywood International Film
Festival (“WHIFF”) as the Silver Screen Theatre Main Screening and highlight of their
prestigious Gala Evening on 29 July 2008. The film will then compete for several WHIFF Jury
Awards, including for Best Picture.
In addition, “Dance of the Dragon” has been officially selected and will screen in competition at
the 12th Annual Rhode Island International Film Festival in Providence, Rhode Island USA,
in August. The film has been honored with a “selected for early acceptance” status by the
judges of the festival, which qualifies it automatically for consideration at the Oscars.
The film has been garnering international sales and industry attention since its market
screening at Cannes. It will also be showcased at the Shanghai International Film Festival
as part of the Singapore Panorama contingent spearheaded by the Singapore Film
Commission.
Photos Courtesy of Silk Road Pictures
Page 29 of 31
FIVE FOOT BROADWAY MINI MUSICALS
What do Singapore Boys, a perfect nose, a glass of chendol, fireworks, and an invisible man
have in common? Well, each of them has inspired a brand new 15-minute musical premiering
in June, presented by Musical Theatre Limited in collaboration with Esplanade - Theatres on
the Bay, as part of Esplanade's Flipside, held in conjunction with the Singapore Arts Festival.
A call for submission of new 15-minute musicals was made in March. The invitation was made
to the general public, secondary schools and tertiary institutions. Within a span of two weeks,
17 submissions from newcomers and established writers and composers from Singapore and
overseas were collected. Five were selected based on music, storyline and stageability. A
sixth work from an earlier showcase will also be featured in the performance.
These mini musicals will be staged at the Esplanade Theatre Studio on 16 June. Directed by
Christina Sergeant, one of Singapore’s most experienced theatre practitioners and Kenneth
Ngo, the vibrant cast of this performance will also include Candice de Rozario, Eu Jin
Hwang, Windson Liong, Jonathan Lum, Siong Hui Xuan, Eleanor Tan, Jo Tan, and, Tan
Shou Chen. These actors will take on multiple roles and songs in the musicals. Leow Siak
Fah and Leslie Tay will make guest appearances in Stella Kon’s and Desmond Moey’s
Peter and Pierre.
Photo Courtesy of Musical Theatre Limited
Page 30 of 31
Areas of Practice
We are a full-service law corporation providing legal and advisory
services in Singapore as well as internationally. Our areas of
practice include:
541 Orchard Road
#18-01 Liat Towers
Singapore 238881
PHONE:
(65) 6887 3393
•
•
•
•
FAX:
(65) 6887 3303
•
E-MAIL:
Managing Director:
[email protected]
(Personal Assistant:
[email protected])
Office Accountant:
[email protected]
TV/Film/ Corporate:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Music/ IP:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Litigation:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Arts/ Theatre:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Marketing Communications:
[email protected]
We’d
love
hear from
from you.
We’d
love
totohear
you.
Write
to
us
at
Write us at
[email protected]
[email protected]
Page 31 of 31
•
•
Art Law;
Media and Entertainment Law;
Corporate and Commercial Law;
Incorporation of local and offshore entities and provision
of Corporate Secretarial Services;
Intellectual Property Law, including copyrights, trade and
service marks, designs and patents;
Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Resolution;
and
Wills, Probate, Estates and Trusts.
In addition to the above, we have entered into association with a
few strategic legal partners to ensure that we offer to our clients a
comprehensive range of essential legal services.
Within Singapore, we are associated with Balkenende Chew &
Chia. With their support, our practice areas in Singapore now
extend to and include Conveyancing and Property Law.
In Malaysia we are in association with the Media consultancy
company Samuel Seow Corporation Sdn Bhd.
In Australia, we are in association with Feinauer Commercial
Lawyers, which provides a full range of legal services for clients
from around Europe and the Asia Pacific. Dirk Feinauer is also
Special Counsel to SSLC.
Internationally, we have forged strong alliances and a wellconnected network with foreign legal counterparts in territories
like the People’s Republic of China; the Hong Kong SAR;
Malaysia; Indonesia; Thailand; Australia; the United States of
America; Taiwan; and the European Union.
Accordingly, we are well-poised to offer our clients compelling
and cost-effective legal solutions and services around the globe.