In brief
On 10 April 2026, the High Court dismissed claims of copyright infringement, trade mark infringement and inverse passing off brought by The Beauty Nation Pte. Ltd. (“Claimant”) under the Simplified Process for Certain Intellectual Property Claims against Herbs Health Ben Cao Kang Mu Pte. Ltd. and TCM Shop SG Pte. Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”).
The High Court also found that the Claimant had made groundless threats of infringement in its cease and desist letter, but ultimately declined to grant substantive relief as the Defendants failed to demonstrate any actionable loss and there was no basis for declaratory or injunctive relief.
In more detail
The Claimant develops Traditional Chinese Medicine supplements (“Products”) and owns the intellectual property relating to the Products. The Defendants retail the Products in physical retail outlets and online.
Prior to the dispute, the Claimant and Defendants enjoyed a long-standing commercial relationship of more than 12 years which operated on an informal basis, with limited or no documented restrictions governing the Defendants’ marketing and online sales practices.
This came to an end after the Claimant issued a cease and desist letter alleging that the Defendants had been using the Claimant’s trade marks and copyrighted materials without authorisation and demanded, among other things, payment of damages and a written apology.
In particular, the cease and desist letter alleged that the use of the Claimant's trade marks and copyrighted materials between 2017 and 2023 in online listings of the Products on its website and on platforms such as Shopee and Lazada were unauthorised.
The High Court dismissed the claims of copyright infringement and trade mark infringement on the basis that the Defendants’ use fell within the scope of an implied licence arising from the parties’ course of dealings. In particular, the Court placed weight on the Claimant’s knowledge of, and acquiescence to, the Defendants’ online listings over an extended period, coupled with the continued supply of Products without objection.
The High Court dismissed the claim of inverse passing off as the Claimant failed to show that an actionable misrepresentation arose on the facts, noting in particular that the Products sold were genuine goods originating from the Claimant and continued to be marketed using the Claimant’s branding, such that there was no misrepresentation as to trade origin.
While the Court found that the cease and desist letter contained groundless threats, it declined to grant relief as the Defendants did not establish that they had suffered loss as a result of the threats, and no further relief was necessary in the circumstances.
Key takeaways
This decision shows that the Singapore Courts will closely scrutinise the commercial realities of the parties’ relationship when assessing IP infringement claims, particularly in distributor or reseller contexts. Where a rights holder has, over a sustained period, permitted a counterparty to use its trade marks or marketing materials with knowledge of such use, the court may be prepared to find that an implied licence has arisen. This is fact-sensitive and turns heavily on conduct, acquiescence and the absence of objection, rather than formal contractual language. If businesses want to restrict resale presentation, it is often more effective to rely on contractual controls, especially where goods are genuine.
For brand owners, the case underlines the real risk of losing control over downstream use of IP rights if distribution arrangements are not clearly documented and actively managed. Simply relying on ownership of IP rights, without putting in place contractual controls on branding, online listings or marketing collateral, may not be sufficient to restrain a distributor’s use later on. Once a pattern of tolerated use is established, it may be difficult to unwind. If a business does not want distributors using marks or content online, there must be clear objections early and boundaries must be documented, as silence together with ongoing supply can be construed as consent.
From an enforcement perspective, the decision is also a timely reminder to exercise caution before issuing cease and desist letters. Even where a rights holder believes it has a valid claim, broadly framed allegations may be found to constitute groundless threats. However, the case also shows that such findings do not automatically translate into remedies. A claimant facing a groundless threats allegation must still prove actual loss or a real need for declaratory or injunctive relief, which may be difficult where the dispute is largely commercial or historical. Claimants must avoid overbroad threats that sweep in multiple claims that cannot be substantiated, while defendants alleging grounds threats should document loss (e.g., lost listings, sunk advertising expenditure, platform penalties or reputational effects) as the court will focus on actionable loss.
Finally, the decision highlights that proceedings under the Simplified Process are not a shortcut to exert commercial pressure. The court will scrutinise whether the claims are properly made and proportionate to the issues at hand. Parties should ensure that claims brought under this regime are legally robust and supported by evidence, failing which they risk adverse findings that undermine both their IP position and broader commercial strategy.
Sanil Khatri, Daryl Seetoh, and Natalie Joy Huang, Local Principals, have contributed to this legal update.
* * * * *
© 2026 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.