\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 A Singapore inventor behind a space-saving door system widely used in HDB flats and local homes has succeeded in a High Court case, with business rivals found to have passed off similar doors as his design.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit in the High Court was brought by Mr Ng Say Keong, a sole proprietor in the business of designing, marketing and installing doors and door-related products in Singapore. He registered his business S & K Solid Wood Doors in 2006.<\/p>\n
In 2014, he applied for a Singapore patent for a slide-and-swing door system he invented to maximise space in compact homes. The patent was granted in 2015, and he named the product \u201cSK Door\u201d after the initials of his name.<\/p>\n
Mr Ng said in court papers that he has sold an estimated 350,000 space-saving SK doors in Singapore. His business has grown substantially over the years, with net profit rising from $24,993 in 2019 to $130,795 in 2022. His customers include interior designers, contractors, private developers and HDB.<\/p>\n
He said that in July 2023, a relative of an existing customer installed slide-swing doors bought from Jia Le Aluminium and 9 Power Aluminium & Glass, and workers who installed the doors allegedly identified themselves as being from \u201cSK Doors\u201d.<\/p>\n
Jia Le was registered in Singapore in 2017 and 9 Power in 2018. They share the same registered address as well as the same shareholders and directors, Mr Koh Thiam Hock and Mr Lim Swee Kiat. Both men have also been directors and shareholders of a Malaysia-registered company, Supreme Door Aluminium & Glass, since February 2023.<\/p>\n
The Malaysian company, registered in Johor Bahru and incorporated on March 8, 2021, by Mr Ng\u2019s former employee Goh Song Guan, manufactures a similar slide-and-swing door known as \u201cSD Door\u201d. <\/p>\n
Patents for the SD Door were filed in Malaysia and Singapore, and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore granted it a patent on Nov 1, 2024. These doors are sold in Singapore by Jia Le and 9 Power.<\/p>\n
When Mr Ng inspected the doors installed at the home of his customer\u2019s relative, he found that they were not his products.<\/p>\n
To investigate further, he hired a private investigator to conduct a \u201ctrap purchase\u201d at Jia Le and 9 Power\u2019s showroom. The investigator was shown a slide-and-swing door that was referred to as an SK door. A door was eventually purchased and delivered at a discounted rate. Upon inspection, Mr Ng confirmed that it was not one of his patented doors.<\/p>\n
Mr Ng sued Jia Le and 9 Power in the High Court in March 2024, accusing them of infringing his patent and passing off their products as SK doors.<\/p>\n
In response, Jia Le and 9 Power denied the allegations. They disputed that their staff had identified themselves as being from \u201cSK Doors\u201d and challenged the validity of Mr Ng\u2019s patent.<\/p>\n
The High Court case was heard over five days in May and July.<\/p>\n
In a written judgment issued on Dec 5, Justice Dedar Singh Gill ruled that Jia Le and 9 Power had passed off SD doors as SK doors. \u201cThe evidence establishes that the defendants engaged in intentional acts of passing off,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
A key part of his decision turned on the private investigator\u2019s visit to the defendants\u2019 showroom on Aug 1, 2023, where he was shown an SK door on display. <\/p>\n
Justice Gill said: \u201cThe SK door was installed at their showroom… and there were various materials (for example, dark wood grain finish, black marble finish) with numerical labels plastered on the SK door. The presence of separately labelled materials on the door strongly suggests that it was being used as a sample rather than a mere toilet door.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jia Le and 9 Power did not dispute that there was an SK door in the showroom. <\/p>\n
Giving evidence, Mr Koh explained that the SK door was leftover stock from the time when the companies had sold Mr Ng\u2019s products, and that it had been \u201cinnocently\u201d used as a toilet door.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis explanation does not withstand scrutiny,\u201d Justice Gill said.<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cIf the SK door was merely leftover stock used as a toilet door, there would be no reason for the defendants to plaster various material samples with numerical labels on it. The defendants had by then stopped selling SK doors for at least half a year. It would have been logical for them to use an SD door as the toilet door. Curiously, despite the office being a showroom, they did not retain even one sample of an SD door. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe only cogent explanation for the defendants\u2019 conduct is that they were deliberately attempting to mislead customers into thinking that the doors they sold were SK doors.\u201d<\/p>\n
Justice Gill added that Mr Ng had satisfied all three elements required to establish passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. \u201c(The) defendants do not dispute that Mr Ng has acquired goodwill in the business relating to SK doors,\u201d the judge said. \u201c(The) evidence establishes that the SK name has acquired distinctiveness in Singapore\u2019s door industry through Mr Ng\u2019s extensive use over nearly two decades.\u201d<\/p>\n
On misrepresentation, the court found that the defendants\u2019 conduct created a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.<\/p>\n
On damage, Justice Gill said: \u201cThe fact that the goods are in direct competition with one another is a highly relevant consideration… Given that both parties deal in doors, I am persuaded that the damage element of the passing-off inquiry is established.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, while Mr Ng succeeded on the passing-off claim, the court rejected his separate allegation of patent infringement. After analysing the technical design of both products, Justice Gill accepted the opinion of a jointly appointed expert witness that the defendants\u2019 SD Door lacked a key mechanical feature found in the SK Door, and hence did not infringe the patent.<\/p>\n
Still, while the slide-and-swing door inventor has won a crucial round in the unusual legal dispute, the case is not yet over.<\/p>\n
Following the finding that Jia Le and 9 Power are liable for passing off, both sides are expected to return to court for a further hearing in 2026 to assess the damages for the harm Mr Ng suffered.<\/p>\n
Mr Ng was represented by lawyers Mitchel Chua Yung Guang, Annie Dai Jingwen and Ng Chee Weng from Gateway Law Corporation. Jia Le and 9 Power were represented by Mr Chow Weng Weng of Chow Ng Partnership.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n