ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Registration of a trade mark confers to the owner the right to exclusively use the mark on goods and services in respect of which the mark is registered. Along with it is the right to exclude others from using identical or similar marks on identical or similar goods or services under threat of infringement proceedings. Registration is not in all cases required for a trade mark to be protected. An unregistered trade mark which has been in use in Singapore is still afforded protection under the common law tort of passing off. In Singapore, registered trade marks are governed by the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). Trade mark registration lasts for a period of ten years which takes effect from the filing date of the trade mark application. It can be renewed indefinitely for further periods of ten years. Priority claim Singapore is a member of the Paris

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Priority date Section 17 of the Patents Act (Cap 221) provides that the priority date of a Singapore patent application is the date of filing of a patent application in another country where the application was first filed. The other country must be a party to the Paris Convention or a member of the World Trade Organisation.z If the invention was first filed in Singapore, the date of filing of the Singapore application will be the priority date for the invention in another country. This priority date will determine which materials form the state of the art when assessing the patentability of the invention. Paris Convention Treaty application A Paris Convention Treaty (PCT) international application may be filed with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) as the receiving office. Filing the PCT international application preserves the applicant’s right to obtain patent protection in all of the PCT contracting

Arbitration analysis: The claimant (CAI) applied successfully to the Singapore High Court to partially set aside an arbitral award made in breach of the principles of natural justice. In the arbitration, the defendants (CAJ and CAK) raised a new ‘extension of time’ defence (EOT defence) in closing submissions. The effect of the ultimately successful EOT defence was to reduce the amount of liquidated damages payable by the defendants by approximately $US 20m. The claimant applied to set aside the tribunal’s decision on the grounds that: CAI did not have a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case in respect of the EOT defence, and the tribunal’s decision was not backed by any evidence and any reliance on its professed experience was not explained. The court held that the EOT defence was a completely new defence introduced at an extremely late stage of the proceedings to which the claimant did not have a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case. The tribunal’s reliance on its own experience without first telling the parties that it would be doing so and explaining what this experience entailed, amounted to a breach of natural justice. The court also found that the tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The award was set aside in so far as it allowed the EOT defence. Written by Daljit Kaur, knowledge lawyer at Baker McKenzie.

Arbitration analysis: During restructuring proceedings, it is critical for the debtor company to be given ‘breathing room’ to develop its restructuring plan. This is typically achieved through a moratorium, which bars third parties from bringing proceedings against the company and its assets. This potentially gives rise to tension with the arbitration sphere. In a pro-arbitration jurisdiction like Singapore, is the court under a mandatory obligation to grant a carve-out to the restructuring moratorium so that a third party may commence an arbitration against the debtor? In Sapura Fabrication v GAS, the Singapore Court of Appeal opinion that there is no mandatory obligation on the court to grant such a carve-out. However, the court has the discretion to decide whether to do so. Relevant factors include the nature of the claim to be brought against the company, the timing of the carve-out application and any prejudice that may be caused to the creditors or restructuring. Written by Eden Li, partner at WongPartnership LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to set aside an International Commercial Court (ICC) award for being contrary to public policy in Singapore, because the relief granted was allegedly illegal under the applicable foreign law. The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) interpreted the leading Court of Appeal judgment in AJU v AJT as standing for the proposition that in considering such setting aside applications, the court may reopen the tribunal’s findings of law, but not findings of fact in the absence of vitiating factors. The SICC acknowledged that there was another possible interpretation of AJU v AJT, ie that the court should not, save in limited circumstances, reopen findings of fact or law so long as the decision was within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, the SICC considered that this should be left to the Court of Appeal to clarify in an appropriate case. On the facts of the present case, the tribunal’s findings of law and fact and relief granted under the applicable foreign law were findings of fact in Singapore law that could not be reopened. This case analyses the state of the law on the setting aside of awards on public policy grounds in Singapore and highlights an area that would benefit from further clarification by the Court of Appeal. Written by Sheila Ahuja, partner at Allen & Overy and Hongchuan Zhang-Krogman, associate at Allen & Overy.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. This Practice Note examines legal and practical issues relating to the copying of software. It sets out software copyright protections under copyright law to combat unauthorised copying of software, explores the extent to which software can be copied lawfully, and whether rights owners can go too far in trying to stop unauthorised copying. It further explores changes that are being considered in Singapore’s copyright regime that are likely to have an impact on the copying of software. The legal framework Computer programs may be eligible for copyright protection as ‘literary works’ under the Copyright Act (Cap 63). It may also be possible for there to be patent protection for a computer program if it satisfies the necessary three-fold criterion under the Patents Act (Cap 221): • whether the invention is new • whether it involves an inventive step, and • whether it is capable of industrial application Which parts

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Ownership of copyright Copyright is a personal right, created by a qualified person, when they materially contribute to the creation of the specific interpretation of that work. See Asia Pacific Publishing Pte v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte [2011] 4 SLR 381 (not reported by LexisNexis®). It is distinguished from the physical right of ownership over the work, which can be held by someone other than the copyright owner. As enshrined in section 30(2) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), the creator of the work is considered to be the author of the work, and will be the first owner when work is rendered into material form. However, there are several express exceptions to this principle that would have the author become the first owner of the copyright within the Copyright Act: • the Copyright Act, s 30(4)—copyright produced by employees over the course of their employment will belong to their employer

Loan market and developments Please provide a brief overview of the current state of the loan markets in your jurisdiction and any significant recent market developments. Singapore is an established financial centre of international repute, with a legal system that is based on the English common law. According to the website of the Singapore Central Bank (the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)), as of August 2026, there were about 131 commercial banks in Singapore and many other financial institutions. Apart from Singapore-based companies, many businesses in the region seek financing from banks operating from their Singapore offices. In addition to loans, banks in Singapore offer a broad range of financial services including investment banking and treasury services. Banks with significant retail operations and banks which are systemically important to Singapore may be required by the MAS to incorporate locally. There are currently seven banking groups that are deemed systemically important, three being the major Singapore-headquartered banks. Please provide a brief overview of forthcoming changes to the law or other matters that may affect the loan markets

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. An interested person may apply to the Registrar of Designs (Registrar) or the High Court to revoke the registration of a design on the grounds that: • the design is not new at the date of its registration • there are other reasons that the design should not have been registered • the design was at the time of registration a corresponding design in relation to an artistic work in which copyright subsisted and the registered design rights have expired in its registered rights pursuant to section 22(1) of the Registered Designs Act (Cap 266) For definition of ‘artistic work’, see section 7(1) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63). In proceedings before the High Court on use by the Singapore government of a registered design, the government may also apply to the High Court for revocation of a registered design or alternatively apply to put

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissed an application to introduce new evidence on foreign law and to set aside an arbitral award (the Award), issued by a tribunal in proceedings administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) on the basis that: (i) the Award contained decisions on matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration, (ii) there was a breach of the rules of natural justice in the making of the Award, and (iii) the Award was contrary to Singapore public policy. Shaun Lee, counsel and Low Zhe Ning, associate, in the dispute resolution group at Bird & Bird ATMD LLP explain the implications of the decision of the SICC in this case.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. Duration of copyright The moral justifications for IP aim to eventually have innovations enter the public domain for the benefit of society in exchange for a monopoly over them by the owner to incentivise their creation in the first place. This is also true in the case of copyright, where a duration must be set to the copyrights that will have them to expose and allow the work to enter public domain. The issue is of course what this duration will be. Duration of copyright—Berne Convention Article 7(1) of the Berne Convention (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) lays out the minimum requirements for copyright protection for all its signatory countries. It reads as follows: ‘Article 7 (1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.’ It should be clarified that the

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court dismissed an application by the first defendant for a stay of the court proceedings in favour of arbitration, made pursuant to section 6 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) (IAA), and an application by the second to fourth defendants for a case management stay of proceedings under the court’s inherent powers. The decision is of particular interest to practitioners as the court concluded, in dismissing the application for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration, that a med-arb clause constituted an arbitration agreement which, on the facts, the first defendant had repudiated rendering it inoperative.