EAST COAST PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD. v FAMILY PODIATRY CENTRE PTE. LTD.

[2024] SGHC 102 High Court (General Division) 17 April 2024 • HC/OC 33/2022 • 49 min read

15 cases cited (14 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	17 April 2024
Judge	Dedar Singh Gill
Charges / claim	Intellectual Property
Counsel	Hin Tat Augustine & Partners, LegalStandard LLP, Mohamed Zikri bin Mohamed Muzammil, Phipps Jonathan, Quay Wee Meng Andrew

Source: [2024] SGHC 102, High Court (General Division), decided 17 April 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Passing off Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Infringement — Internet usage

Practice Areas

Intellectual Property

Judges (1)

Dedar Singh Gill Delivered

Counsel (5)

Hin Tat Augustine & Partners Firm LegalStandard LLP Firm Mohamed Zikri bin Mohamed Muzammil Counsel Defendant Phipps Jonathan Counsel Claimant Quay Wee Meng Andrew Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd Claimant Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd Defendant

Case Significance

East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 102 was decided by the General Division of the High Court (Originating Claim No 33 of 2022), with Dedar Singh Gill J delivering judgment on 17 April 2024 after hearings on 2-3 November 2023 and 19 January 2024. The claimant, East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, a Singapore-registered company operating four podiatry centres in the Kembangan, Orchard, Novena and Bukit Timah regions, was the registered proprietor of trade marks containing the words "East Coast Podiatry". On three separate occasions the defendant, Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, used Google Ads to display advertisements containing the words "east coast podiatry", "podiatry east coast" and "podiatrist east coast". The court considered whether this amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off, and concluded that it was not infringing use and that there was no passing off.

Summary

East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd, the registered proprietor of trade marks containing the words "East Coast Podiatry", sued Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd over the latter's use of Google Ads displaying advertisements containing phrases such as "east coast podiatry", alleging trade mark infringement and passing off. Both companies provide podiatry services in Singapore. The General Division of the High Court concluded, on the facts of the case, that the defendant's use was not infringing and that there was no likelihood of confusion giving rise to passing off, and accordingly held that both claims failed.

What did the court decide in East Coast Podiatry Centre v Family Podiatry Centre [2024] SGHC 102?

Dedar Singh Gill J held that the defendant's use of the words "east coast podiatry", "podiatry east coast" and "podiatrist east coast" in Google Ads was not infringing use of the claimant's trade marks and did not amount to passing off. The claimant operated four podiatry centres in Singapore.

Can a competitor use trade-marked keywords in Google Ads according to [2024] SGHC 102?

In East Coast Podiatry Centre v Family Podiatry Centre [2024] SGHC 102, the High Court found the defendant's use of "East Coast Podiatry" variants in Google Ads, on three occasions, was not trade mark infringement and not passing off. The decision turned on the Trade Marks Act and the specific facts.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act (Cap 97) Cases on this Act →

s 3(1)

Trade Marks Act (Cap 332) Cases on this Act →

s 27

Cases Cited (15)

SG (1)

[2023] SGHC 156

SLR (13)

[1998] 1 SLR(R) 975 [2000] 1 SLR(R) 687 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216 [2010] 1 SLR 382 [2013] 1 SLR 531 [2013] 2 SLR 941 [2014] 1 SLR 911 [2016] 3 SLR 517 [2016] 4 SLR 86 [2016] 4 SLR 919 [2016] 5 SLR 1183 [2017] 2 SLR 308

UK (1)

[2013] 2 All ER 663