Singapore
A Global IP Powerhouse: Innovating Legal and Digital Strategies for Stronger Protection
Singapore enforces IP rights under laws such as the Trade Marks, Patents, and Copyright Acts, with specialized courts handling disputes. Right holders can take civil, criminal, or administrative action, with remedies including injunctions and financial damages. Counterfeit goods in trade routes pose challenges, but legal and customs reforms aim to strengthen enforcement. With the rise of digital threats, Singapore is enhancing global collaboration and evolving IP strategies.
Share to your networks!
A. Legal Framework
Singapore’s intellectual property (IP) enforcement framework is governed by a comprehensive set of laws and regulations that protect various IP rights.
Key legislation includes:
- Trade Marks Act: governs registration, protection, and enforcement of trademarks.
- Patents Act: governs protection and enforcement of patent rights.
- Copyright Act: governs copyright protection and infringement.
- Registered Designs Act: protects the visual design of objects.
- Geographical Indications Act: protects geographical indications.
- Plant Varieties Protection Act: protects new plant varieties.
The Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 streamlines IP dispute resolution in the High Court and clarifies that the arbitrability of IP disputes in Singapore and border enforcement measures are reinforced through the Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Act 2018. Common law principles, such as the tort of passing off, also play a role in protecting unregistered trademarks.
As a member of the World Trade Organisation, Singapore has ratified key treaties and conventions pertaining to IP enforcement, including the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention, which sets minimum protection standards for artistic and literary works.
B. IP Enforcement Mechanisms
- Civil Actions: Rights holders can file civil suits for IP infringement, seeking remedies such as injunctions to stop unauthorised use and damages for financial loss.
- Criminal Actions: Available for serious IP infringements, such as counterfeiting and piracy, with penalties including fines and imprisonment. Criminal enforcement follows a two-pronged approach:
i. A police-led process – authorities initiate proceedings after raids and investigations; and
ii. A collaborative approach – the rights holder gathers evidence, works with the police for raids, and decides on prosecution after obtaining a fiat from the Attorney-General’s Chambers. - Administrative Actions: Limited in general, mainly involve customs enforcement, allowing authorities to intercept counterfeit goods through seizure on request or ex-officio seizure, where customs officers act independently to detain suspect shipments.
a. High Court: Primary forum for most civil IP disputes, including cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, as well as passing off claims.
Within the General Division of the High Court, there is a specialised IP/IT List that streamlines the management of complex IP and technology-related cases.
b. State Courts: Handles criminal offenses related to IP infringement.
c. Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”): Includes a specialised Technology, Infrastructure, and Construction List, which may address cross-border IP disputes with commercial significance.
d. Tribunals (e.g., Copyright Tribunal): Alternative forum for resolving copyright-related disputes, offering a more accessible and cost-effective means of adjudicating certain IP matters.
e. Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS”).
| IP Asset in dispute | Type of Dispute (some of which may also be resolved in court) |
| Trade Mark | Opposition Revocation Invalidation |
| Patent | Revocation Opposition Entitlement Inventorship |
| Design | Revocation |
| Geographical Indication | Objection to amendment Opposition to registration Qualification of rights Cancellation Rectification |
| Plant Variety | Objection to denomination Cancellation |
Mechanisms to Streamline IP Litigation and Trade Mark Proceedings;
- An optional “Simplified Process for Certain Intellectual Property Claims” is available for disputes where the relief sought does not exceed S$500,000, provided that all parties consent.
- Designed for relatively straightforward IP claims with lower monetary value
- Faster and more cost-effective resolution.
- Suitability for this process depends on factors such as financial ability to litigate, complexity of the case, and whether the trial is expected to last no more than two days.
- For trademark proceedings filed on or after 2 January 2025, IPOS has introduced a pilot expedited track for select cases before the Trademark Registrar, subject to parties’ consent.
- Aims to provide quicker adjudicated outcomes, offering greater certainty in parties’ business strategies and potentially serving as precedents in parallel proceedings across jurisdictions.
- Imposes shorter deadlines, reducing waiting time for a decision to approximately 9 months.
C. Remedies and Penalties
Available remedies for IP infringement
IP Asset in dispute | Remedies Available |
Trade Mark |
|
Patent |
|
Design |
|
Geographical Indication |
|
Plant Variety |
|
Copyright |
|
Criminal liability for wilful infringement | Penalties |
Manufacture for sale |
|
Sale of infringing copies; |
|
Possession or importation of infringing copies for commercial purposes |
|
Distribution of infringing copies for commercial purposes |
|
Making or in possession of an article specifically designed for making infringing copies |
|
As above, remedies and penalties are enforced through court orders and legal proceedings, with the possibility of criminal prosecution for severe cases.
D. Alternative Dispute Resolution
a. Arbitration and mediation
i. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre (“AMC”) – collaboration framework between IPOS and the WIPO AMC that allows parties to resolve IP disputes via ADR.
ii. ASEAN-Mediation Programme, which offers funding for IP/tech-related mediations administered by WIPO AMC.
iii. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), which establishes a specialist panel of IP arbitrators, which includes internationally renowned IP experts.
b. Negotiation
c. Expert determination – for patent proceedings
Generally high level of effectiveness compared to litigation. The above-listed ADR methods enable parties to:
a. Preserve business relationships;
b. Provides a customizable, flexible and cost-effective process with higher level of control by parties and chances of exploring creative solutions;
c. Ensures confidentiality, which is particularly crucial for IP-related matters, especially those involving trade secrets or proprietary know-how.
F. Emerging Challenges
Customs’ IP enforcement for counterfeit and pirated goods distributed and sold on online platforms.
Customs can prevent some counterfeit and pirated goods from entering Singapore; Singapore is a major transshipment port, but counterfeit goods passing through Singapore’s port infrastructure enroute to other countries generally cannot be stopped.
G. Future Trends
With support from WIPO and IPOS through the AMP+ fund, efforts will focus on further improving mediation models particularly in the ASEAN region and developing specialised mediators to handle complex IP disputes.
Global cooperation will expand as Singapore engages with foreign IP offices and international organisations to address cross-border IP challenges and integrate best practices into legal reforms.
The increase in AI-related disputes, including copyright infringement by AI-generated content and unauthorised use of copyrighted materials for AI training, will likely prompt future legislative updates, new case law, or the establishment of specific dispute resolution mechanisms designed for AI-related IP issues.
The Author:
Dixon Soh
Director, Head of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets Practice CHP LAW LLC
[email protected]
Dixon is an Advocate & Solicitor with the Supreme Court of Singapore and a Barrister & Solicitor of the High Court of Australia as well as New Zealand. He is a certified IP Mediator, President of the IPOS Society, and currently serves as the Chairman, IP Practice Sub-Committee: Emerging Issues. Dixon is an expert lawyer specialising in intellectual property (IP) and intangible assets and heads this practice at CHP. He brings the benefit of in-house experience as a former in-house counsel at SEA Group (Garena and Shopee), specialising in IP and commercial dispute resolution, followed by roles as Deputy Director (IP Strategy) and Head of Legal at IPOS International.
Disclaimer: The following article is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice by CHP LAW LLC. The viewpoints expressed herein do not represent the official legal stance of any of these firms. Consequently, the firms cannot be held accountable for any actions taken by individuals who use this article for purposes other than those for which it is intended.
© 2025 ADCO Law. All Rights Reserved.
