Passing off in Singapore: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage
7 reported judgments · 2 courts · intellectual property
Mixed outcomes · most claims dismissed where an element (goodwill or a confusing misrepresentation) was not proved
Across the leading Singapore passing-off judgments analysed here, the outcomes were mixed: in three cases the claim succeeded where all of the classical trinity was proved (a claimant found liable for passing off; the passing-off ground made out in a trade-mark opposition; and a further case in which trade-mark infringement and passing off were both made out, with damages to be assessed), while in the others the claim was dismissed because one element of the trinity was not made out — in one case for want of goodwill, and in others because no confusing misrepresentation was established (including an Appellate Division decision that reversed a finding of passing off for lack of any actionable misrepresentation). A claimant must prove goodwill in a business, a misrepresentation, and damage, and a claim fails if any one of them is missing; the same trinity applies to inverse passing off. These are decided outcomes, on each case's own facts — not a prediction of how any passing-off claim would be decided, and not legal advice.
What have Singapore courts decided?
Passing off is the action a trader uses to protect the goodwill it has built up against a rival who misrepresents a connection with it. Singapore courts decide these claims through the classical trinity: a claimant must prove (a) goodwill in a business, (b) a misrepresentation, and (c) damage. As [2025] SGHC 243 sets out (citing Lifestyle 1.99 Pte Ltd v S$1.99 Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR(R) 687 and Singsung Pte Ltd v LG Electronics Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 86), each of these elements must be established, and [2026] SGHC 77 confirms that the same trinity applies to "inverse" passing off (where a trader misrepresents another trader's goods as its own). Goodwill is the attractive force that brings in custom. It does not exist on its own but attaches to a business and is manifested in the custom the business enjoys; it may be proved by evidence of sales, or of expenses incurred in promoting goods and services under a mark, brand or get-up ([2025] SGHC 243), and it is concerned with the business as a whole ([2025] SGHC 51). Misrepresentation turns first on distinctiveness: this is a threshold inquiry, because if the claimant's mark or get-up is not distinctive of the claimant's goods or services there can be no actionable misrepresentation even where the defendant uses an identical or similar sign. The misrepresentation must then give rise to actual confusion, or a likelihood of confusion, assessed from the vantage point of a notional customer with imperfect recollection ([2025] SGHC 243; [2025] SGHC 51). Finally, the misrepresentation must cause, or be likely to cause, damage to the claimant's goodwill — for example through a diversion of sales or by blurring ([2025] SGHC 51). The outcome depends on the evidence, and a claim fails if any one element is missing. In [2025] SGHC 187 the passing-off claim was dismissed for want of goodwill, while in [2024] SGHC 102 the claim failed because the claimant did not prove that the defendant's advertisements caused confusion or a likelihood of confusion (the misrepresentation element). On appeal in [2024] SGHC(A) 18 the Appellate Division reversed a finding of passing off, holding that there were no actionable misrepresentations — illustrating that goodwill, a confusing misrepresentation and damage must each be proved. Where all three are established the claim succeeds: in [2023] SGHC 156 the court found the plaintiffs' trade-mark infringement and passing-off claims made out and ordered an assessment of damages on those successful claims. This page reports what the tort of passing off requires and how the Singapore courts have applied it in decided cases; it is reference information about the law, not legal advice, and every case turns on its own facts.
These are the outcomes Singapore courts reached on each case's own facts (the evidence of goodwill, the distinctiveness of the mark or get-up, the likelihood of confusion, and the damage proved) — reported as data, not a prediction of how any particular passing-off claim would be decided, and not legal advice. For an assessment of a specific situation, consult a qualified Singapore Advocate & Solicitor.
What Singapore courts decided in each reported judgment. Each row is the outcome in that specific case on its own facts; the full reasoning and a verbatim line from the judgment are in the breakdown below.
| Judgment | Outcome (claim made out?) | Source cases |
|---|---|---|
[2024] SGHC(A) 18 · SGHC(A) The Appellate Division held that there were no actionable misrepresentations by the appellants, so the judge's finding of passing off was in error and the appellants succeeded on that point — the misrepresentation element of the trinity was not made out, and (the trade-mark infringement finding also being reversed) the directors' joint liability fell away with it. | Passing-off finding reversed — no actionable misrepresentation | |
[2026] SGHC 77 · SGHC The court confirmed that the classical trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage applies equally to a claim for inverse passing off (where a trader misrepresents another's goods as its own), and dismissed the claimant's claims. | Claim dismissed (trinity applies to inverse passing off) | |
[2025] SGHC 243 · SGHC Goodwill was established on the evidence, distinctiveness was the threshold for misrepresentation, and the confusion inquiry was assessed from a notional customer with imperfect recollection; the damage element was made out, and overall the court found the defendants liable for passing off. | Liable for passing off (trinity made out) | |
[2025] SGHC 187 · SGHC The passing-off claim failed for lack of goodwill — treating the claimant's reputation as goodwill would impermissibly confuse the two — and also failed because damage to goodwill was not proved. | Passing-off claim dismissed — no goodwill | |
[2025] SGHC 51 · SGHC The court allowed the appellant's appeal in respect of the s 8(7)(a) passing-off ground (while dismissing the appeal on the s 8(2)(b) ground), the goodwill, misrepresentation and damage requirements having been made out. | Passing-off ground (s 8(7)(a) TMA) succeeded | |
[2024] SGHC 102 · SGHC The court found that the claimant had not sufficiently proven that the defendant's advertisements resulted in confusion or a likelihood of confusion, so the misrepresentation element was not made out; both the trade-mark infringement and the passing-off claims failed (the court emphasising it decided so only on the facts of that case). | Passing-off claim dismissed — confusion not proven | |
[2023] SGHC 156 · SGHC The court found the plaintiffs' claims for trade-mark infringement and passing off made out and ordered an assessment of damages on those successful claims (dismissing the other claims and counterclaims), the goodwill, misrepresentation and damage elements of the trinity having been established. | Liable for passing off (trinity made out) — damages to be assessed |
The judgments, case by case
An Appellate Division appeal in the long-running Nalli dispute over use of the 'Nalli' name, in which the trial judge had found the appellant company (NPL) liable for trade-mark infringement and passing off and had held its directors jointly liable; the appellants challenged, among other things, the finding of passing off.
The Appellate Division held that there were no actionable misrepresentations by the appellants, so the judge's finding of passing off was in error and the appellants succeeded on that point — the misrepresentation element of the trinity was not made out, and (the trade-mark infringement finding also being reversed) the directors' joint liability fell away with it.
“NPL is not liable for passing off as no actionable misrepresentations were made” — [2024] SGHC(A) 18, the judgment
A High Court claim for copyright infringement, trade-mark infringement and inverse passing off over online sales, with a counterclaim for groundless threats.
The court confirmed that the classical trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage applies equally to a claim for inverse passing off (where a trader misrepresents another's goods as its own), and dismissed the claimant's claims.
“I dismiss Beauty Nation’s claims” — [2026] SGHC 77, the judgment
A High Court claim for patent infringement and passing off concerning solid-wood doors, where the court worked through goodwill, distinctiveness / misrepresentation and damage in full.
Goodwill was established on the evidence, distinctiveness was the threshold for misrepresentation, and the confusion inquiry was assessed from a notional customer with imperfect recollection; the damage element was made out, and overall the court found the defendants liable for passing off.
“I find the Defendants liable for passing off” — [2025] SGHC 243, the judgment
A High Court dispute in which one of the claimants (GallopAir) brought a passing-off claim; the court set out the elements of passing off and examined whether goodwill and damage were proved.
The passing-off claim failed for lack of goodwill — treating the claimant's reputation as goodwill would impermissibly confuse the two — and also failed because damage to goodwill was not proved.
“GallopAir’s claim for passing off accordingly fails for lack of goodwill” — [2025] SGHC 187, the judgment
A High Court appeal from a Principal Assistant Registrar in a trade-mark opposition, addressing goodwill (concerned with the business as a whole), misrepresentation (requiring distinctiveness) and damage (by blurring or diversion of sales) on the passing-off ground under s 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.
The court allowed the appellant's appeal in respect of the s 8(7)(a) passing-off ground (while dismissing the appeal on the s 8(2)(b) ground), the goodwill, misrepresentation and damage requirements having been made out.
“I allow the Appellant’s appeal in respect of the ground under s 8(7)(a) of the Act” — [2025] SGHC 51, the judgment
A High Court claim by the proprietor of 'East Coast Podiatry' trade marks against a competitor that used the words 'east coast podiatry' and similar phrases in Google Ads, alleging trade-mark infringement and passing off.
The court found that the claimant had not sufficiently proven that the defendant's advertisements resulted in confusion or a likelihood of confusion, so the misrepresentation element was not made out; both the trade-mark infringement and the passing-off claims failed (the court emphasising it decided so only on the facts of that case).
“the claims for trade mark infringement and for passing off fail” — [2024] SGHC 102, the judgment
A High Court dispute over the 'Dr Who' name used for a bottled-drinking-water and water-dispenser business, in which the plaintiffs sued for trade-mark infringement and passing off among a multiplicity of claims and counterclaims.
The court found the plaintiffs' claims for trade-mark infringement and passing off made out and ordered an assessment of damages on those successful claims (dismissing the other claims and counterclaims), the goodwill, misrepresentation and damage elements of the trinity having been established.
“I order an assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiffs’ successful claims for trade mark infringement and passing off.” — [2023] SGHC 156, the judgment
Key questions
What must be proved to succeed in a passing-off claim in Singapore?
A claimant must prove the classical trinity: (a) goodwill in a business, (b) a misrepresentation by the defendant, and (c) damage (or a likelihood of damage) to that goodwill ([2025] SGHC 243, citing Lifestyle 1.99 and Singsung). The same three elements apply to inverse passing off ([2026] SGHC 77). This describes what the law requires; it is not advice on, or an assessment of, any particular dispute.
What is goodwill in the law of passing off?
Goodwill is the attractive force that brings in custom. It does not exist on its own but attaches to a business and is manifested in the custom the business enjoys; it may be proved by evidence of sales or of promotional expenditure under the mark, brand or get-up, and is concerned with the business as a whole ([2025] SGHC 243; [2025] SGHC 51). Whether goodwill exists is a question of fact and evidence.
When is there an actionable misrepresentation in passing off?
Distinctiveness is the threshold: if the claimant's mark or get-up is not distinctive of the claimant's goods or services, there is no actionable misrepresentation even if the defendant uses an identical or similar sign. The misrepresentation must also give rise to actual confusion, or a likelihood of confusion, assessed from the standpoint of a notional customer with imperfect recollection ([2025] SGHC 243; [2025] SGHC 51).
What kind of damage is required for passing off in Singapore?
The misrepresentation must cause, or be likely to cause, damage to the claimant's goodwill — for example by a diversion of sales away from the claimant or by blurring of the distinctiveness of the claimant's sign ([2025] SGHC 51; [2026] SGHC 77). Where the elements are not made out, the claim fails, as in [2025] SGHC 187.
Related
intellectual property →Source judgments
Every figure on this page is drawn from a reported Singapore judgment. The cases below are the primary sources; each links to its full judgment.
- [2024] SGHC(A) 18 — Nalli Pte Ltd & 2 Ors v Nalli Kuppuswami Chetti And Nalli Ramanathan & Anor · primary source
- [2026] SGHC 77 — The Beauty Nation Pte. Ltd. v Herbs Health Ben Cao Kang Mu Pte. Ltd. & Anor · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 243 — Ng Say Keong v Jia Le Aluminium Pte. Ltd. & Anor · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 187 — Yang Qiang & Anor v Gallop Apac Pte Ltd & 5 Ors · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 51 — Sunrise Plus Pte. Ltd. v The Sunrider Corporation Dba Sunrider International · primary source
- [2024] SGHC 102 — East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte. Ltd. v Family Podiatry Centre Pte. Ltd. · primary source
- [2023] SGHC 156 — Dr. Who Waterworks Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors v Dr. Who (M) Sdn. Bhd. & 3 Ors · primary source
Compiled by the SG Case Law editorial team from primary sources — the judgments themselves and Singapore Statutes Online (sso.agc.gov.sg). · Updated 10 July 2026 · How we compile this
Last updated .