IPOS update on IP/IT dispute resolution in Singapore: August-September 2026

Dear readers

Welcome to the latest IP & tech dispute resolution developments in Singapore.

Court decisions

Parastate Labs, Inc v Wang Li and others [2026] SGHC 178

This case arose from the collapse of the Babel group, which operated cryptocurrency lending and asset management businesses. Parastate Labs had invested in a cryptocurrency fund managed by the group. Its investment was wiped out when a cryptocurrency exchange liquidated trading positions following unmet margin calls. Parastate sought to hold one of the group’s founders, Wang Li, personally liable for its losses.

The High Court dismissed the action. On the dishonest assistance claim, the court found that the relevant Babel entities did not hold the fund assets on express trust for subscribers and did not owe

Parastate fiduciary duties under the arrangements in this case. There was therefore no underlying breach of trust or fiduciary duty on which to base the claim. The court also found that dishonesty had not been established. The fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy claims appeared to have been abandoned, but the court addressed and rejected them for completeness.

DPT and another v DPV and others [2026] SGCA(I) 4

This appeal arose from a shareholder dispute involving a financial technology joint venture. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of an application to set aside a partial award in a SIAC arbitration concerning, among other matters, a minority-shareholder buy-out. It rejected the alleged breaches of natural justice relating to valuation and the tribunal’s treatment of evidence, reiterating that setting-aside proceedings cannot be used to pursue an appeal on the merits.

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd v Moveon Technologies Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 186

This case concerned a dispute between joint venture partners in the optical-components industry.

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech had obtained permission to enforce an interim award issued by an emergency arbitrator in a China-seated CIETAC arbitration. The High Court set aside the enforcement order. On the expert and factual evidence before it, the court found that the emergency arbitrator lacked power to grant the interim relief under the applicable Chinese law and the parties’ agreement.

IPOS decision

Comité International Olympique v Olimp Laboratories Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia

[2026] SGIPOS 10

The International Olympic Committee opposed an application to register the OLIMP SPORT

NUTRITION composite mark for nutritional supplements and food preparations in Classes 5, 29 and

30. It relied on its earlier OLYMPIAN, OLYMPIAD, OLYMPIC and THE OLYMPICS marks.

The IP Adjudicator found a low degree of similarity between the marks and a moderate degree of similarity between the goods, but no likelihood of confusion. Consumers were likely to examine these health and nutritional products carefully. The strong reputation of OLYMPIC and THE OLYMPICS also made consumers more likely to notice the differences between the marks.

Although OLYMPIC and THE OLYMPICS were well known to the public at large in Singapore, the ground under section 8(4)(b)(ii) failed. Consumers would not form the necessary mental link between those marks and the application mark; unfair dilution and unfair advantage were not established.

The passing-off ground also failed for want of misrepresentation. The opposition was dismissed and the application was allowed to proceed to registration.

Keynote address by Mr Murali Pillai SC at IPOS x CIArb ADR TIPS

In his keynote address, titled “Underwriting the Power of Ideas in Uncharted Waters and Larger

Oceans”, at the second edition of Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Technology and Intellectual

Property in Singapore, co-organised by IPOS and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Mr Murali

Pillai SC, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport, observed that innovation is increasingly sophisticated, cross-border and collaborative. IP and technology disputes often arise from existing commercial relationships, including technology licences, research collaborations, manufacturing arrangements and software agreements. He highlighted the need for fair and predictable dispute resolution, and the challenges posed by disputes that span jurisdictions, involve specialised subject matter and require timely resolution to preserve commercial value.

Public Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Singapore’s Intellectual Property Regime

The Ministry of Law and IPOS have launched a public consultation on artificial intelligence and

Singapore’s intellectual property regime. The consultation runs from 26 August to 22 October 2026, with feedback due by 5 pm on the closing date.

For copyright, the consultation covers certainty and accountability in AI training, copyright risks in AI deployment and use, and human creativity in AI-assisted works. For patents, it considers inventorship in human-AI interaction and the impact of large-scale publication of AI-generated technical disclosures on prior art. It seeks views on possible legal refinements, practical information resources and non-binding technical measures. Related media coverage includes the following:

•

The Straits Times: This article discusses Singapore’s copyright framework for AI training, rights-owner safeguards and possible collective licensing arrangements.

•

Channel NewsAsia: In this video interview, IPOS Chief Executive Tan Kong Hwee discusses questions raised by the consultation, including AI training and the treatment of AI-assisted works.

•

CNA938 Rewind: This interview with Trina Ha, Chief Legal Counsel and Director of the Legal

Department at IPOS, discusses the consultation’s implications for copyright and patents.

•

Lianhe Zaobao: This Chinese article reports on the public consultation and its examination of how Singapore’s copyright and patent regimes should respond to AI developments.

Publications and articles

Readers may be interested in the following recent publications/articles:

•

David Tan, Susanna H S Leong and Bryan Tan Zhi Yang, “Intellectual Property Law”, Singapore

Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases, published on e-First on 31 August 2026.

The article encapsulates and evaluates the 2025 decisions of the Singapore courts on intellectual property law.

•

David Tan, “The Positive Impact of Technology on Copyright’s Negative Space in the Fashion

Industry”, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (September 2026 Online). The article examines how fashion design can thrive despite limited copyright protection, and how technology, particularly generative AI, may expand this “negative space” and help designers develop their creations.

•

Michael Handler, “Artificial Intelligence and Trade Mark Registration: What’s Next for the

Human Decision-Maker?”, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (September 2026 Online). The article examines AI-based tools used by trade mark offices to assess potential examination objections. It considers rule-of-law concerns, the difficulty of replicating human judgment in applying multifactorial legal tests, and the risks of training these tools on flawed or overturned decisions.

•

Warren B Chik and Saw Cheng Lim, Information and Communications Technology Law in

Singapore, 2nd edition (Academy Publishing, 2026). This edition updates the account of

Singapore’s ICT law to 2025, and includes developments in intellectual property, online harms and cybersecurity.

•

Ang Hou Fu, “Breakfast, Eventually: Why Lawyers Should Build Their Own Tools”, Singapore

Law Gazette (August 2026). This article recounts the development of an AI agent that reads legal news and produces a short daily briefing. It may interest readers exploring practical uses of AI in legal work.

•

“Singaporean photographer Zhang Jingna fights to keep art safe from AI scrapers”, The Straits

Times (25 August 2026; updated 27 August 2026). The article describes the difficulties of Cara

(a social platform with 1.5m registered users) with preventing AI scraping despite “NoAI”

tags, and the costs of responding.

•

Chin Seng Bryan Leow, “Copyright in unreported judgments: perspectives from Singapore”,

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (published online on 12 September 2026). The article examines whether copyright subsists in unreported Singapore judgments and, if so, where ownership should vest. It considers the historical position on Crown copyright, comparative approaches and the case for vesting copyright in the Judiciary alongside a calibrated open-access licence.

IPOS delegation to Beijing

From 8 to 11 September 2026, a delegation comprising representatives from IPOS and IPOS

International visited Beijing for a series of conferences and engagements, including the 15th China

Intellectual Property Annual Conference (CIPAC). On 10 September, the delegation attended the

China International Fair for Trade in Services 2026 International Conference on the Development of

Intellectual Property Services (CIFTIS), at which Sandy Widjaja from IPOS delivered a presentation titled “Strengthening International IP Dispute Resolution Through ADR”.

Featured event

AI and IP Disputes: From Training Data to Outputs – Rethinking Where and How Global Tech

Disputes Are Resolved (Webinar, 7 October 2026, 8-9am SGT)

On 7 October 2026, the California Lawyers Association, in collaboration with IPOS, will host a webinar on international AI and IP disputes. The discussion will cover forum strategy in cross-border AI disputes and approaches beyond court litigation for resolving disputes arising from AI training data and outputs. Speakers include Dr Stanley Lai SC, Paul McClelland, Ken Korea and Thara Gopalan, with

Jeffery Daar as moderator.

If you have any feedback or interesting news to share, please drop us a note at gabriel_ong@ipos.gov.sg.

Archived copies of our previous updates are available at the IPOS HMD circulars and news page.