Why was McDonald’s “BIG MAC” trade mark revoked in Europe?

Reading Time: 4 minutesIntroduction In the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (“EUIPO”) decision in Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd v McDonald’s International Property Company, Ltd dated 11 January 2019, the EUIPO revoked McDonald’s rights in respect of the trade mark “BIG MAC”. The reason for the decision was that McDonald’s had failed to provide sufficient evidence to the EUIPO to prove that […]

Advertising and promoting your business: What’s legal?

Reading Time: 5 minutesAdvertisements in Singapore are generally self-regulated by industry. This role is performed by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS), and the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP). The SCAP is not legally binding. However, this does not suggest that all forms of advertising practice are condoned. Consumers of advertisements and advertisers themselves act as […]

SMU Lexicon: Versloot Dredging: Time for Singapore to follow the tide?

Reading Time: 13 minutesIntroduction The traditional common law position in the field of insurance has always been biased towards the insurer, where insurance doctrines have been “inflexibly applied in favour of insurance companies.”[1] This has been noted in several instances, such as the insured’s duty of non-disclosure, the interpretation of insurance policies, and in the context of fraudulent […]

SMU Lexicon: Singapore’s Approach Towards Adopting the Multi-Factorial Approach in Insolvency Proceedings

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction In cross-border insolvency, there are two contrasting approaches. On the one hand, there is the territorial approach, focused primarily on the interest of the local creditors.[1] On the other, there is the universal approach, where one court leads the administration of the insolvency proceedings, and other courts cooperate with the main action.[2] For the […]

Vietnam Legal Update: Proposed Solar Feed-In-Tariffs

Reading Time: 3 minutesOn 3 May 2019 the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam (the “MOIT”) submitted to the Prime Minister a draft decision intended to replace Decision No. 11/2017/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on mechanisms for the encouragement of development of solar power, dated 11 April 2017 (“Decision 11”). In response to this submission, the Prime […]

Does removing an insolvent party from a joint venture infringe the anti-deprivation rule?

Reading Time: 5 minutesIntroduction The Court of First Instance analysed whether a clause within a joint venture agreement between a company in liquidation and an interested party should be void for being classified as “disposition” under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32). Build King Construction Ltd (“BK”) formed a joint venture […]

SMU Lexicon: Negotiating Damages for Breach of Contract: Morris-Garner v One-Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20

Reading Time: 16 minutesIntroduction At the quantification stage in breach-of-contract claims, claimants must sometimes think out of the box. Where no loss has been suffered or loss is hard to prove, one solution is to argue for “negotiating damages”, or damages for breach of contract assessed by reference to the sum a claimant could hypothetically have received in […]

The importance of the use of languages in determining the intended coverage of arbitration clause

Reading Time: 8 minutesIntroduction It is not uncommon that parties to a commercial agreement include an arbitration clause to govern the way in which dispute is settled. In Giorgio Armani SpA v Elan Clothes Co Ltd [2019] HKCFI 530, in deciding an application by the plaintiff seeking the continuation of an anti-suit injunction against the defendant from taking any further […]

Myanmar Legal Update: Deployment of Employees in Myanmar

Reading Time: 2 minutesEmployment law in Myanmar is still a work in progress. Rather than a single labour code, a patchwork of labour legislation covers different aspects of the employment relationship. Currently, the rules and regulations regarding foreign workers are regularly changing and requirements by the authorities may vary from application to application. We understand that the Ministry […]

DDoS attack – cybercrime for misusing a victim’s computer through the victim’s website

Reading Time: 4 minutesIntroduction In a recent case HKSAR v Chu Tsun Wai [2019] HKCFA 3, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) set out the basis to which a cyber-attacker may be found guilty for damaging the other’s property by misusing the victim’s computer through the victim’s website. Background On 12 October 2014, Mr Chu Tsun Wai (“Mr Chu”) took […]

Cambodia Tax Update: Tax Treaty with Hong Kong Signed

Reading Time: 2 minutesCambodia has signed a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) with Hong Kong on the 26th of June 2019 as announced by the Secretary for Financial Services and Treasury, Mr James Lau, on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Under the DTA, double taxation will be avoided in that any tax paid in Cambodia […]


Reading Time: 1 minutes简介 2019年3月4日,新加坡高等法院(「法院」)就Re Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd and others (Asia Aviation Holdings Ptd Ltd, intervener) [2019] SGHC 53一案颁下判词,全面承认美国破产程序为《新加坡示范法》下的外国主要程序。 背景 Zetta集团(包括Zetta Jet USA, Inc及Zetta Jet Ptd Ltd(「新加坡Zetta」))于2017年在美国破产法院被入禀申请自愿破产(「美国破产程序」)。介入人于2017年9月19日在新加坡取得了禁制令,阻止新加坡Zetta及其他人在美国破产程序中采取进一步行动(「新加坡禁制令」)。然而,美国破产程序仍继续进行。 2017年12月13日,受托人向法院申请承认美国破产程序。法院于2018年1月24日在Re Zetta Jet Pte and Others [2018] SGHC 16一案中有限度地承认了美国破产程序,但仅限为了让受托人能够申请解除新加坡禁制令。 2018年3月9日,新加坡Zetta提出要求解除新加坡禁制令的申请。新加坡禁制令于2018年7月12日经各方同意而被解除。 《新加坡示范法》 新加坡自2017年5月23日起采纳及实施了《联合国国际贸易法委员会跨境清盘示范法》(1997年5月30日)(《示范法》),具体规定载于新加坡《公司法》(第50章,2006年修订版)附表十(《新加坡示范法》)。 根据《新加坡示范法》,外国代表可向法院申请承认外国清盘程序,如果符合指定条件,且法院信纳,承认该程序不会违反新加坡的公共政策(「公共政策例外情况」),则法院则必须承认该外国清盘程序。 承认外国清盘程序为主要程序或承认其为非主要程序存在分别,两者的济助及后果各有不同。 外国主要程序比外国非主要程序可享有更广泛的济助:只有外国主要程序可自动享有《新加坡示范法》第20(1) 条下的济助。主要程序是指在债务人的主要利益中心进行的程序。 在本案中,法院需审理的主要争论点包括如何确定新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,以及公共政策例外情况是否适用。 主要利益中心 关于新加坡Zetta的主要利益中心,法院考虑了评估主要利益中心的日期以及评估的方式。 评估日期 关于评估主要利益中心的日期,法院考虑了其他司法管辖区的做法: 英国及欧洲的做法,以及《联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法制定及诠释指引》(2013年)采取的做法:采用外国清盘程序的开始日期。 澳洲的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的聆讯日期。 美国的做法:采用申请承认外国程序的存档日期。 法院决定采纳美国的做法,认为这种做法能提供较大的确定性、更切合实际商业环境以及《示范法》条文的措词。 法院表示,在外国清盘程序开始后,容许公司酌情决定将主要利益中心转移至另一个司法管辖区以争取最大机会达致有效的重组方案(避逃刑事或类似法例除外),是无可非议的。 相关因素 《示范法》及《新加坡示范法》并无界定「主要利益中心」。根据《新加坡示范法》第16(3) 条,债务人的注册办事处所在地点被推定为债务人的主要利益中心(「该推定」)。法院裁定,该推定并非一项可被推翻的法律推定,而是视乎特定案情可被其他因素取代的起始考虑因素。 除了该推定,法院认为并无实际的法定指引,说明何谓债务人的主要利益中心。法院考虑了联合国国际贸易法委员会发出的指引,以及参考了英国、欧洲、澳洲和美国的案例。 法院认同英国、欧洲及澳洲的司法惯例,裁定上述的其他因素应该是一般能够由第三方(特别是债权人及潜在债权人)客观地确定的因素。法院应着重实际发生的事实,并进行范围广泛的查讯,以了解有关公司在某个地方的活动及与该地方的关连。在考虑这些因素时,无需严格辨别Zetta集团内的不同实体,因为确定主要利益中心并不涉及独立法团身分的概念。 法院考虑了以下因素: […]