2022年8月，在美国洛杉矶的一家名为圣安东尼酒庄诉某嘉兴公司商标侵权纠纷一案的上诉中，美国联邦第九巡回法院推翻了原审法院的错误结论，裁定《兰哈姆法》（the “Lanham Act”）第1051(e)条的送达程序不仅适用于美国专利及商标局（下称“USPTO”）的行政程序，同样也适用于法院程序，即针对外国公司的商标诉讼可直接向USPTO完成送达。
按照《兰哈姆法》第1051(e)条的规定，居住在外国的商标申请人，可以指定一个居住在美国的人作为在影响该商标的程序中接受送达通知或程序的受送达人。如果该商标申请人拒绝指定某人或无法找到被指定人，可以通过向USPTO的局长向该商标申请人完成送达。
Singapore, 14 November 2022―Jerald Foo has joined Selvam LLC as a Director in the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group at its Singapore office. Jerald focuses his practice on commercial litigation, arbitration and mediation, having significant experience with complex commercial disputes both as a practitioner in a leading international law firm and as a former judicial officer.
The dark side of the rise of cryptocurrency and blockchain-enabled transactions is fraud of a new kind, global in scope and emboldened by a veil of anonymity. One need only look to the headlines to see the impact. From the theft of hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin in the infamous Mt. Gox hack, to the horror story of a 53-year-old Singaporean businesswoman who lost $1.2 million of her life savings in an investment-based crypto scam despite having taken steps to ascertain the authenticity of the counterparty. For a victim of crypto fraud, what redress, if any, can the laws of Singapore provide? We review recent developments and share our thoughts.
Continue reading “Crypto Fraud: An Overview of Recourse and Remedies in Singapore”
We are delighted to announce that Selvam LLC has been named an Impact Case Award Winner by Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Awards 2022 for our involvement in the matter “Minority oppression claims against Mustafa boss, Mustaq Ahmad”.
How do 1,102 investors, who claim they have been duped into investing in a Ponzi scheme, bring an action in the Singapore courts? To many, the first thing to do would be to launch a class-action lawsuit against the respondents.
In Singapore, such “class-action” lawsuits operate differently from those in U.S. litigation. Traditionally, a group of litigants in Singapore with a common interest would have to band together to commence what is known as a “representative action,” pursuant to Order 15, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed). The alternative would be for the litigants to each commence separate proceedings and later consolidate them into one single action.
무역 금융의 세계는 결코 간단하지 않습니다. 여러 기관, 경쟁 청구, 상계 (set-offs), 임무, 채무와 많은 관계 당사자들이 이루고 있습니다. 이 복잡한 환경을 탐색하는 것은 굉장히 어렵고, 수많은 법적 문제와 불확실성을 야기합니다.
CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19의 사례에서 이 복잡함이 명백하게 드러납니다. 이 특정 사례에서는 항소법원이 고등법원과 완전히 반대되는 결론에 도달했습니다. 이 사례는 복잡한 다자간 무역금융계약의 어려움(downfall)을 강조하며, 법원의 계약서 해석에 대한 지침을 제공합니다. 법원은 문서의 진위 여부, 진위 입증 방식에 대한 요점을 고려하지만, 이번 기고문은 문제의 핵심인 무역금융 계약의 싸움에 초점을 맞출 것입니다.
The world of trade finance is never straightforward. Multiple facilities, competing claims, set-offs, assignments, debentures and multiple parties are, to the say the least, what make the backbone of trade finance. Navigating this complex landscape is tough, and raises a plethora of legal issues and uncertainties.
This complex landscape is evident in the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19, where the Court of Appeal considered and analysed the same issues of diametrically opposite competing contracts, and arrived at a completely opposite conclusion than that of the High Court.
Hedging contracts are well established in the Oil & Gas industry. It is a common risk management measure used to reduce a party’s exposure to the constantly fluctuating oil prices. Essentially, under a hedging contract, companies can establish their prices at a fixed price through a commodity swap or option. Hedging contracts are second nature to the industry, and most traders would not give a second thought as to whether such arrangements are reasonable. However, it was this very issue that was put forth before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Apex Energy International Pte Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 138. The Singapore Courts had to determine whether, following a breach of contract of sale, whether a hedging arrangement was a reasonable mitigation in the quantification of the aggrieved parties losses. We successfully acted for Apex Energy in proving that a hedging arrangement is a reasonable mitigation measure.
Continue reading “To Hedge or not to Hedge? That is the (mitigatory) question.”
