[2011] SGHC 176

“at the first syllable of a word is the most important for the purpose of distinction because persons using English tend to slur the termination of words: Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 176 at [63] (“Sarika HC”). The Court of Appeal in Sarika CA at [29] agreed that the first syllable of the ma”

“r a misrepresentation which creates a likelihood of confusion is substantially the same as that for “likelihood of confusion” under s 8(2)(b) of the TMA (Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Café Ptd Ltd [2011] SGHC 176 at [212]; Sarika at [77]). I have earlier found at [195] that there is a likelihood of confusion under s”

“In determining the weight to be accorded to survey evidence, the High Court in Ferrero SpA v Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 176 (“Sarika (HC)”) adopted guidelines from Whitford J’s decision in Imperial Group Ltd v Philip Morris & Co [1984] RPC 293 (“the Whitford Guidelines”), which included (at [134]):”

“r of treating the assessment of distinctiveness of the trade marks as a separate step was then perpetuated in several subsequent High Court cases such as Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 176 at [47] (citing the High Court decision of Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc [2010]”

“o set out a detailed discussion of the survey evidence. That said, I agree with the comments made by the IP Adjudicator at [47]–[48], following Chan J in Ferrero SPA v Sarika Connoisseur Café Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 176 at [130], that “great care and circumspection must be taken with respect to market surveys”. The purpose”