The Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Act 2018 (IPBE Act) changed into surpassed via Singapore’s parliament on 9 July 2018 and become assented to by the president on 2 
August 2018. The IPBE Act implements a phased technique to pleasurable Singapore’s obligations under the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) and Singapore’s dedication to improving its border enforcement measures. It will even provide Singapore customs and highbrow assets rights (IPR) holders with new and better anti-counterfeiting powers.
The IPBE Act will encompass amendments to the Copyright Act (CA), Trade Marks Act (TMA), Registered Designs Act (RDA) and Geographical Indications Act (GIA).
The IPBE Act is being carried out in 3 phases. The first phase got here into force on 10 October 2018 and made amendments to the powers under the CA and TMA. The second section, which makes a specialty of improving and standardizing the provisions in the CA and TMA, is scheduled to be implemented via 2019, whilst the EUSFTA is predicted to come into pressure. The 0.33 section, which specializes in changes to the RDA and GIA, is expected to return into effect inside three years of the EUSFTA coming into force.
Previously, anti-counterfeiting efforts through Singapore customs have been hindered with the aid of difficulties in obtaining and providing IPR holders with the information essential for instituting IP infringement lawsuits. However, the phase 1 amendments have dwindled the information asymmetry among infringers and customs and IPR holders such that they are able to accumulate important records – as an example, the call and phone details of someone related with the infringing goods – with the intention to allow the proper institution of complaints.
With the recent segment 1 amendments, agencies ought to bear the subsequent in thoughts if any of their emblems are the situation of an importation or exportation of counterfeit items that are sooner or later seized or detained with the aid of customs:
Customs have the electricity to acquire information from applicable people who they fairly trust would possibly have any statistics or documents relevant for the IPR holder to institute intellectual assets infringement proceedings in opposition to applicable parties when it comes to seized imports; and
IPR holders have the proper to accumulate from customs the names and make contact with info of any man or woman related to the detained imports or exports necessary for instituting intellectual assets infringement lawsuits towards relevant events.
Companies must note that facts may best be disclosed handiest after the goods have been seized and IPR holders have furnished Customs with a protection deposit and helping files evidencing their IPR rights.
(1) Customs to accumulate statistics from humans whom they moderately consider to have any facts/record applicable for the motive of enabling IPR holders to institute IP infringement court cases in opposition to folks related with the seized imports (sections 4 and 57 of the IPBE Act); and
(2) IPR holders to acquire, from customs, the names and speak to information of any man or woman connected with the detained imports/exports important for instituting IP infringement complaints (sections 7 and 60 of the IPBE Act).
Phase 2: Upon entry into the pressure of EUSFTA, by means of 2019
Phase 2 amendments to the CA and TMA will:
(1) Enhance border enforcement measures, which include empowering IPR holders to request customs to look at and seize infringing exports, which presently simplest practice to imports, and lengthening customs’ electricity to collect records on seized items to exports as well as imports (sections 12 and sixty-five of the IPBE Act); and
(2) Standardizing the phrases and provisions referring to border enforcement inside the CA and TMA.
Phase three: Within three years of the EUSFTA getting into pressure
Phase 3 amendments to the GIA and RDA will:
(1) Enhance border enforcement measures, which includes empowering IPR holders to request customs to look at and seize infringing exports/imports (sections 35 and fifty three of the IPBE Act), and empowering customs to accumulate records from persons whom they reasonably agree with to have any statistics/file relevant for the reason of enabling IPR holders to institute IP infringement lawsuits towards individuals related with the seized exports/imports (sections 39 and fifty-three of the IPBE Act); and
(2) standardizing the terms and provisions relating to border enforcement in the GIA and RDA.
