英语论文网

麦当劳公司和未来企业PTELTD,食品帝国控股有限公司的核心运营单位,在2003年到2007年期间，涉及了两个法律案件。麦当劳在2003年失去了第一个案例，未来企业使用的标志在视觉上与麦当劳公司是不同的。此外,未来企业的设备有一个鹰的标志，同时麦当劳公司其金色的弓箭手。因此,配色方案、字体和字体形式方面，未来企业的标志与麦当劳公司所使用的标志是非常不同的。在2005年，麦当劳公司起诉未来企业，起诉的缘由是再次修改设备上鹰的标志。麦当劳公司赢得了这个案件，这给市场造成了一定的影响，公众更容易混淆两个公司咖啡相关的饮料。

From the previous assignment, we have look into the cases involving McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, we have also introduced the basic Intellectual Property Laws and how they are inter-related to one another. In this assignment, we will analyze the Singapore Laws that is related to the cases involved, and then we will provide recommendation to give our client a better idea of the rules and regulations they should abide.

Summary of the cases

McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise PTE LTD, core-operating unit of Food Empire Holding Limited, are involved in two law cases during the period of 2003 to 2007. McDonald lost the first case in 2003 as the mark used by Future Enterprise is visually different from McDonald Corporation. Furthermore, Future Enterprise has its eagle device while McDonald Corporation has its golden archer. Therefore, the color scheme, font, and typeface on the mark of the Future Enterprise is very different from the one used by McDonald Corporation. McDonald Corporation sued Future Enterprise again in 2005 for amending the logo of MacCoffee by dropping the eagle device. McDonald Corporation has won this court case against Future Enterprise as there is a higher chance of confusion that will occur in the public and both products names are relate to coffee beverages.

Both cases mentioned above are inter-related with each other as both cases involved the Intellectual Property Law of Trade Mark Act (TMA) where s15 of the TMA is highly emphasized. In the midst of both cases, both McDonald Corporation and Future Enterprise have made various appeals to the cases and this shows that both companies have the great intention and desires to protect their own trademarks. The connection between both cases shows that McDonald wanted to monopolize their trademark as far as food and beverages were concerned. Future Enterprise which also wanted to conserve its right of the prefix Mac in the same industry tried it's best to maintain its position.

Description and Analyze of the Singapore Law Involved

In the case study, the Singapore Law that involved is mainly the Trademark and Passing off laws under the Intellectual Property Law. The laws involved can be classified into two main categories of Common Law and Statute Law.

Statute Law Involved: (Refer to appendices Section A, A: 1 for definition of Statute Law)

The Statute Laws that are applicable in the following case are Section 12(1), Section 15 and Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Rev Ed). Below are the descriptions of the different section of laws involved and the reasons why it is involve本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。