The Singapore Law Gazette

Bicentennial Celebrations — Developments in Intellectual Property

Introduction – The Historical Foundations of Intellectual Property Laws in Singapore

As a profession we should look at this Bicentenary year with thankfulness whilst also harbouring an assuring measure of thoughtful expectation for the future, after we take stock of the many significant milestones in the development of Intellectual Property (“IP”) law and policy over the past 200 years. The journey has been arduous, but through the process we have seen the autochthonous growth of jurisprudence and steady intentional development of the IP ecosystem in Singapore. This article will traverse developments and highlights within the IP ecosystem, comprising a myriad of developments in noteworthy legislation, international treaties, case law, enforcement and IP policy.

Legislation

The Application of English Law Act 1993 (“Application of English Law Act”) clarified the extent to which English law applied in Singapore. Whilst the First Schedule to the Application of English Law Act spelt out the specific English enactments which applies in Singapore,¹See section 4 of the English Law Act it did not appear to include any IP legislation. The basis for the general reception of English law is taken to be the Second Charter of Justice (“Second Charter”).²For a compelling study of the reception of English Law into Singapore, see Andrew Phang, From Foundation to Legacy: The Second Charter of Justice (SAL, 2006). This notable preceding work was written to celebrate the 180^th Anniversary of the Second Charter. Following the landmark case of R v Willans (1858) in Penang, the legal position has been firmly recognized that, through the Second Charter, English law (both common law and equity as it stood in 1826 as well as pre-1826 English legislation) was introduced to Singapore.³Tan Eugene & Chan Gary, “The Singapore Legal System” (2019), Singapore Law Watch <https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/About-Singapore-Law/Overview/ch-01-the-singapore-legal-system> at (1.2.9). See also Phang Andrew, “Cementing the foundations: The Singapore application of English Law Act 1993” (1993), University of British Columbia Law Review <https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4222> at p 208 that said the specific English IP legislations post-1826 were enacted in Singapore independently of the Second Charter of Justice.

Under the Second Charter, a number of Imperial statutes were made applicable to Singapore as a colony by the United Kingdom Parliament. These statutes continued to remain applicable after our independence, even though some were repealed and replaced by our own legislation. The Copyright Act of 1911 (“Imperial Copyright Act”) was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1987.⁴Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 October 1993) (vol 61) at col 610 (accessed date 19 January 2026) (Prof. S. Jayakumar (Minister for Law)) The Copyright Act 1987 was largely based on the Australian Copyright Act 1968. The Imperial Copyright Act was applicable to many colonies and former colonies, but failed to serve the evolving and dynamic context of industrial and creative development in our nation, transforming from a trading port into an economic and industrial powerhouse.⁵See further George Wei “A Look Back at Public Policy, The Legislature, The Courts and the Development of Copyright Law in Singapore – 25 years on” (2012) 24 SAcLJ 867.

In the arena of trade marks the early case of Fraser v Nethersole⁶Fraser v. Nethersole (1885-1890) 4 Ky. 269. decided that the English Trade Marks Act 1883 (which introduced statutory registration of trade marks in the UK) had not been received into Singapore, and this carried a consequential effect on English trade mark legislation that followed the 1883 Act. With the enactment of the Merchandise Marks Ordinance in 1917, trade marks that were registered in the UK were also protected in the Straits Settlements. The formal statutory trade mark registration system only started later in Singapore with the Trade Marks Ordinance 1938.⁷Trade Marks Ordinance 1938 (SS Ord No 38 of 1938) This was modelled on the UK Trade Marks Act 1938.⁸Ng-Loy Wee Loon, “Trade Marks, Language and Culture: The Concept of Distinctiveness and Publici Juris” (2009) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 508 <https://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/07/2001-2009-sjls-dec-508.pdf> at 517 The most notable change came with the current Trade Marks Act 1998 that came into force on 15 January 1999. The Trade Marks Act 1998 complied with minimum TRIPS Agreement stipulations for trade mark protection, and was modelled largely on the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 (which implemented the EU Trade Marks Directive 1988 and the Council Regulation on the Community Trade Mark 1993). Further substantive amendments came in 2004 with amendments to the Trade Marks Act 1998⁹Introduced in the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 2004. to give effect to the relevant provisions of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement as well as the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well Known Trade Marks 1999. These changes ushered in additional protection for well known trade marks in Singapore – a reflection of growing brand equity and international high-end commerce in Singapore.

In the field of patents, prior to 1994, the only way to obtain patent protection in Singapore was through the Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act 1937, which required an applicant to first obtain a patent in the UK before re-registering the patent in Singapore with the Registry of Trademarks and Patents. The re-registration was a formality since the Registry did not conduct any independent examination into the substantive requirements for patentability. Instead, the Registry relied on assessments made by the British Patent Office.¹⁰Gill Alisha et. al., “The Development of Singapore’s Intellectual Property Rights Regime” (2004), Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy – Microsoft Case Studies Series on Information Technology, Public Policy and Society <https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/case-studies/lkwms_series01_sg_ip.pdf?sfvrsn=5135960b_2> at p 7 The Patents Act 1994 established a new law of patents for Singapore, repealing and replacing the former Registration of United Kingdom Patents Act 1937. The substantive provisions of the new Act were largely based on those in the UK Patents Act 1977, with some variations.¹¹Appendix – Major Parliamentary, Statutory and Related Developments in Intellectual Property Law in Singapore, 1987-2012 (2012) 24 SAcLJ 1082 <https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal-Special-Issue/e-Archive/ctl/eFi rstSALPDFJournalView/mid/513/ArticleId/337/Citation/JournalsOnlinePDF> (“Major IP Law Developments Appendix”) at p 1083

With the enactment of the new Patents Act 1994, the patent prosecution system in Singapore has also changed markedly over the years. Whilst it began as a “self assessment” system (where a patent application would proceed to grant even if objections were raised in the course of examination), Singapore’s patent system, evolved into a “positive grant” system. Under this system, which took effect from 14 February 2014, only patent applications that satisfied the criteria of patentability (i.e. novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability) could proceed to grant. Singapore’s positive grant system has ushered in a new era of better quality patents (crucial to our Republic’s credentials as an innovation and bio-medical hub), with more accountability and certainty for inventors, patent owners and users. In the profession, we have also been privileged to work alongside our local echelon of committed patent engineers and registered patent attorneys, who have, to their great credit, formed and championed their own professional class within the IP ecosystem.

The Registered Designs Act 2000 (“RDA”) repealed and replaced the United Kingdom Designs (Protection) Act 1938 (“UKDPA”) to formally introduce design registration in Singapore. Under the UKDPA, Singapore operated a “piggy back” system where a design that was registered in the UK under the Registered Designs Act 1949 acquired the same rights and privileges in Singapore without the need for any further registration. Notable changes were also made to the Copyright Act 1987 on the designs-copyright interface, including restrictions on the assertion of artistic copyright to protect designs of useful articles. In 2004, the RDA was amended to give effect to the Geneva Act of Hague Agreement concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (adopted in Geneva on 2 July 1999).¹²The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (2 July 1999) <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/285214> In 2017, more substantive amendments to the RDA were introduced to extend protection to non-physical products, virtual designs as well as projected interfaces (e.g. virtual keyboards). Other amendments included colours as design features, handmade products and artisanal works. For commissioned works, default ownership rules changed from the commissioning parties to the designer (subject to contractual overrides), further strengthening the importance of creators’ rights.

The growing recognition and importance of creators’ rights would be further evident from the enactment of the Copyright Act 2021 (“CA2021”).¹³Copyright Act 2021 (Act 22 of 2021) (“Copyright Act 2021”) Key features of the reformist CA2021 included a new moral right of attribution (for the identification of creators and performers when their works are used publicly),¹⁴Copyright Act 2021 sections 369-407 equitable remuneration for some performances and broadcasts,¹⁵Copyright Act 2021 section 151 and expanded rights for performers and producers. The default rules of copyright ownership have also been changed, particularly in the area of commissioned works. The creators are now the first owners of copyright, even for traditional categories of commissioned works such as photographs, films, sound recordings and portraits.¹⁶Copyright Act 2021 section 133 The list of permitted uses (copyright exceptions) have also been expanded, with the introduction of a computational data analysis exception (which cannot be overridden by contract),¹⁷Copyright Act 2021 sections 243-244 and also an amended fair use defence (now rationalized to 4 factors in pari materia with its US copyright counterpart).¹⁸Copyright Act 2021 section 191

Ratification of International and Bilateral Treaties of Significance

Singapore’s membership of different treaties and bilaterals also paved the way for the domestic enactment of harmonized standards of protection for IP. Examples would include the TRIPS Agreement (as defined below), European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

On 1 January 1995, Singapore became a member of the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) and was so bound by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”).¹⁹Major IP Law Developments Appendix at p 1083

The TRIPS Agreement is to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on IP. The Agreement has three main features.²⁰Overview: the TRIPS Agreement, World Trade Organisation <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm> First, it sets out the minimum standards of protection to be provided by each Member in respect of each area of IP covered. Second, it deals with domestic procedures and remedies for the enforcement of IP rights. Finally, it makes disputes between WTO Members about the respect of the TRIPS obligations subject to the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures.

Singapore brought forward the timeframe for implementing the TRIPS Agreement one year ahead of schedule, with the passing of the following: New Trade Marks Act 1998 (notably the abolition of Part A & B register in favour of a de facto “capable of distinguishing” standard, further modernising the trade mark regime to make it more pro-business), Geographical Indications Act 1998, and Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits Act 1999.²¹IPOS, “Our Transformative Story” (2021) (“IPOS 20^th Anniversary Book”) <https://isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/61/e96065f0-1897-4d71-8b8f-aa90d4ee3844/ipos_20th-anni-book.pdf> at p 11

Impact of Free Trade Agreements on IP protection (in particular, EUSFTA, USSFTA, SAFTA)

The European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (“EUSFTA”), which came into force end-2019, was a landmark agreement, being the first Free Trade Agreement between the European Union (“EU”) and an Association of Southeast Asian Nation (“ASEAN”) country.²²“Key Recent Intellectual Property Developments in Singapore: RCEP”, <https://www.rahmatlim.com/sg/publication/articles/13650/partial-commencement-of-geographical-indications-act-2014-on-21-november-2019?agreed=cookiepolicy> UKSFTA, and “Singapore IP Strategy 2030” (2021), Bird & Bird <https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2021/singapore/key-recent-intellectual-property-developments-in-singapore-rcep-uksfta -and-singapore> It brought important changes to Singapore’s IP regime, including changes to its geographical indications (“GIs”) regime and border enforcement regime.

In relation to the former, Singapore had committed to enhancing its existing regime for the protection of GIs, including the establishment of a new framework to register GIs in Singapore and enhanced protection for the

165 GIs originating from the EU within its protection framework.²³“Geographical Indications and the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA)” (2023), European Chamber of Commerce <https://eurocham.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/EUSFTA-GI-Booklet-2023.pdf> Since the establishment of this framework, several disputes addressing the scope and nature of protections available to GIs have arisen before the Singapore courts, including several Court of Appeal decisions.²⁴These decisions include Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco v Australian Grape and Wine Inc (2023) 2 SLR 509 (which discusses the protection of GIs which contained the name of plant varieties or animal breeds) and Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano (2024) 2 SLR 62 (on the relationship between translations in a GI and the perceptions of the average consumer).

In relation to the latter, enhanced border enforcement measures in line with the entry into force of the EUSFTA were introduced by the Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Act 2018 (“IP(BE)A”) passed by Parliament on 9 July 2018, and assented to by the President on 2 August 2018.²⁵Ministry of Law, “Intellectual Property Border Measures Legislation to Come into Operation Upon the Entry into Force of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement on 21 November 2019” (2019), <https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/announcements/intellectual-property-border-measures-legislation-comes-into-operation-on-21-nov-2019/> The IP(BE)A enhances existing border enforcement measures by providing new powers for Customs to obtain and provide information relating to the goods they seized or detained to facilitate the taking of infringement action. In addition, the IP(BE)A amended the Copyright Act 1987, Trade Marks Act 1998, Registered Designs Act 2000, and the Geographical Indications Act 2014 to enhance border enforcement measures for intellectual property rights, as well as to implement Singapore’s obligations under the EUSFTA concerning those measures.²⁶“Partial commencement of Intellectual Property (Border Enforcement) Act 2018 on 21 November 2019” (2019), Allen & Gledhill <https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal-Special-Issue/e-Archive/ctl/eFi rstSALPDFJournalView/mid/513/ArticleId/337/Citation/JournalsOnlinePDF>

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (“USSFTA”) was signed on 6 May 2003, and Chapter 16 of the USSFTA contains detailed provisions on the protection of IP rights.²⁷Major IP Law Developments Appendix at pp 1088-1089 It required compliance with various key treaties,²⁸These treaties include the Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite 1974; International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (revised 1991); World Intellectual Property Organisation (“WIPO”) Copyright Treaty 1996; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996; and Patent Cooperation Treaty (modified 1984). along with further commitments.²⁹As a signatory, Singapore also committed to: (i) give effect to Articles 1 through 6 of the WIPO Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks 1999 (adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of WIPO); (ii) give effect to the Trademark Law Treaty 1994; (iii) make the best efforts to ratify or accede to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs 1999; and (iv) give effect to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks 1989.

Most significantly, the USSFTA set out significant TRIPS-Plus obligations such as to increase the copyright term for works to life and 70 years. Singapore’s implementation of this enhanced copyright term took effect from 1 July 2004.³⁰Intellectual Property (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2004 (No. 21 of 2004)

The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (“SAFTA”) was entered into on 28 July 2003 and subsequently amended on 1 December 2017.³¹Enterprise Singapore, “Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)” <https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/grow-your-business/go-global/international-agreements/free-trade-agreements/find-an-fta/saft a> Chapter 13 of the SAFTA contains the provisions which provide for the protection of IP rights, and each party to the SAFTA undertook several commitments to this end.³²Among other things, each party to the SAFTA committed to: (i) reaffirm its commitment to international instruments (including the TRIPS Agreement); (ii) provide for a term of copyright protection for a work, performance or sound recording not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death; (iii) protect encrypted programme-carrying satellite signals; (iv) provide for presumptions in copyright procedures; and (v) limit liability of service providers.

Case Law

Substantial and significant case law has emerged from our Courts, traversing many areas of Intellectual Property. I can do no better but to refer to the seminal article by Andrew Phang, Goh Yi Han and Jerrold Soh “The Development of Singapore Law: A Bicentennial Retrospective”,³³(2020) 32 SAcLJ 804 which sets out an excellent summary of some of the most significant IP decisions leading up to the bicentennial from the founding of Singapore.³⁴(2020) 32 SAcLJ 804, at 855-858. These cases include, amongst others, Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc³⁵(2014) 1 SLR 911 (a seminal decision of the Court of Appeal setting out the three-step test to assessing similar trademarks), Societe Des Produits Nestlé SA v Petra Foods Ltd³⁶(2017) 1 SLR 35 (which concerned shape marks as well as the requirement of distinctiveness for trade mark protection), Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Novartis (Singapore) Ptd Ltd³⁷(2017) 2 SLR 707 (laying down important principles on the amendment of patent specifications), and Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Ptd Ltd³⁸(2017) 2 SLR 185 (the principle that authorial creation must be causally connected with human creation/the engagement of human intellect). Other cases of consequences over the past decades would include Mühlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology Ltd³⁹(2010) 2 SLR 724 (where the Court resurrected the validity of a patent that was invalidated in proceedings below), Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd⁴⁰(2011) 4 SLR 381 (decision that an author of an original work must be a natural living person), Ila Technologies Ptd Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd⁴¹(2023) 1 SLR 987 (where the Court applied principles of patent insufficiency), Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd⁴²(2009) 3 SLR(R) 216 (the issue of well-known trademarks in Singapore), and Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Ptd Ltd⁴³(2024) 3 SLR 795 (the first case in Singapore invoking the Simplified Process for Certain Intellectual Property Claims⁴⁴The Simplified Process for Certain Intellectual Property Claims is an optional “fast track” for intellectual property litigation under Part 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022.).

IP Enforcement – Dealing with counterfeits (cross-border enforcement measures)

A key international issue in the enforcement of intellectual property rights has been international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.⁴⁵Major IP Law Developments Appendix at p 1084.

Prior to 1995, the main statute had been the Control of Imports and Exports Act, which was repealed and replaced by the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995. The Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995 was in turn amended in 2003 to enable Singapore to implement the USSFTA.⁴⁶Major IP Law Developments Appendix at p 1084. More recently, the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill (“Amendment Bill”) was introduced for First Reading on 14 October 2025. It had its Second Reading and was passed in Parliament on 6 November 2025.⁴⁷Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill (Bill No 14/2025) Once in force, the Amendment Bill will amend the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995 to create a comprehensive framework to regulate the issuing of trade information certificates and to strengthen Customs’ operational effectiveness in the investigation of offences.⁴⁸Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill (Bill No 14/2025).

With Singapore being a trading port, it is not beyond contemplation that the issue of transhipment and trade mark infringement would arise. In Burberry v Megastar,⁴⁹Burberry Ltd v Megastar Shipping Ptd Ltd and another appeal (2019) 1 SLR 526 (“Burberry”). the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) did consider this issue. Two issues were distilled. First, to what extent does the Trade Marks Act 1998 (“TMA”) regulate goods in transit for the purposes of infringement, if such goods are never intended for the Singapore market? Second, assuming that goods in transit are caught by the infringement provisions in the TMA, who is to be held liable for such infringement?⁵⁰Burberry at (23). The SGCA ultimately held that the Respondent freight forwarder company was not liable for trade mark infringement under the TMA for the transhipment of two sealed containers containing counterfeit goods originating from China and bound for Batam. In particular, the SGCA held that to establish liability, the alleged infringer should at least be aware of the existence of the sign on the goods in question even if he did not know that the sign is an infringing trade mark.⁵¹Burberry at (27).

Singapore’s commitment to combatting digital piracy and counterfeiting could also be seen from it being a founder member of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (“ACTA”) in 2011. ACTA is a multilateral agreement that raises international standards relating to the enforcement of IP rights, especially pertaining to the internet. ACTA creates TRIPS-plus obligations such as including more robust border measures, stronger civil and criminal liability regimes and digital copyright enforcement measures. Moreover, the updating of legislation to address new enforcement paradigms is an ongoing effort. For example, to counter digital piracy in the form of illegal streaming, CA2021 introduced criminal liability for the commercial dealing in devices or services that facilitate illegal streaming (e.g. IPTV boxes).⁵²Copyright Act 2021 section 444

Modern day challenges to historical IP regimes (online shopping platforms; AI; dealing with AI-Generated Content)

One of the modern day challenges to historical IP regimes is the introduction of online shopping or e-commerce platforms. It has been noted that platform operators are generally not held primarily liable under Singapore law for intellectual property infringement committed by their users unless they have directly engaged in or authorised the infringing acts.⁵³“E-commerce and Social Media Platform Liability in Singapore” (2025), Rouse <https://rouse.com/insights/news/2025/e-commerce-and-social-media-platform-liability-in-singapore> However, an e-commerce platform could be considered a joint tortfeasor under common law if knowledge of the infringement can be proven.⁵⁴“E-commerce and Social Media Platform Liability in Singapore” (2025), Rouse <https://rouse.com/insights/news/2025/e-commerce-and-social-media-platform-liability-in-singapore>.

In Calvin Klein v HS International,⁵⁵Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Ptd Ltd and others (2016) 5 SLR 1183 (“Calvin Klein”) the defendant e-commerce platform had listed products on its SGbuy4u website obtained from the Chinese online shopping website Taobao.com. Once a user had selected and paid for a desired good on the SGbuy4u Website, the operators of the SGbuy4u business would log on to Taobao.com, locate and purchase the desired good and request delivery to be made to a warehouse in the People’s Republic of China. The operators of the SGbuy4u business would receive the good at the warehouse, freight it to Singapore and deliver it to the user. The Singapore High Court held that the defendant was liable for trade mark infringement under the TMA because it was not a service that merely procured and conveyed desired goods to users unlike a customer-to-customer platform like eBay or Carousell,⁵⁶Calvin Klein at (66). nor was it a mere courier or freight forwarding service.⁵⁷Calvin Klein at (63).

Another modern day challenge to historical IP regimes is the advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”). The Singapore National AI Strategy (2019) includes a plan to review Singapore’s IP legislation to ensure that our laws support the development and commercialisation of new AI technologies.⁵⁸National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2019) <https://file.go.gov.sg/nais2019.pdf> The government reaffirmed its commitment in Singapore National AI Strategy 2.0 (2023) to maintain a regulatory environment for AI that is pro-innovation while ensuring appropriate guardrails through, inter alia, considering updates to broader standards and laws to support effective AI use.⁵⁹Singapore National AI Strategy (2023) <https://file.go.gov.sg/nais2023.pdf>

While there is currently no comprehensive legislation in Singapore which targets the regulation of AI specifically, it has been observed that one of the changes which have been introduced to bring Singapore more in line with our goal to become an AI hub is the amendment of the Copyright Act in November 2021 to allow for the copying and communication of copies for the purpose of computational data analysis, such as text and data mining, without having to seek the permission of each copyright owner subject to certain conditions and safeguards.⁶⁰“Copyright Bill introduced in Parliament to strengthen Singapore’s copyright regime” (2021), Allen & Gledhill < https://www.allenandgledhill.com/sg/perspectives/articles/18947/sgkh-copyright-bill-introduced-in-parliament-to-strengthen-s-c opyright-regime> It has been noted that one of the aims of this move is to increase the availability of AI training data.

That being said, there are a number of issues which require greater clarity insofar as the application of existing IP laws on AI-generated content is concerned. These include copyright ownership, copyright authorship,⁶¹“Computational Data Analysis Exception in Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 a Game Changer”, Business Software Alliance <https://www.bsa.org/pt/node/54401> duration of protection for AI-authored works,⁶²Saw Cheng Lim, “Copyright Ownership and Duration of AI-Authored Works” (2025) 37 SAcLJ 790 <https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Commentaries/2601-04%20Copyright%20Ownership%20Duration%20of%20AI %20Authored%20Works.pdf?utm_source=slw_edm&utm_medium=slw_edm_08Jan&utm_campaign=2026Jan-ap_jo-slw_edm -slw_edm_08Jan-slwcommentaries&utm_id=ap_jo> infringement risks (such as copyright liability for infringing authorisations, and joint tortfeasorship) that are associated with both inputs (training of large language models) and outputs (AI-generated content),⁶³Peng Huijuan & Tan David, “Copyright in the Generative AI Era: Reimagining Creativity and Fairness” (2025) 37 SAcLJ 749 <https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Commentaries/SAL%20Journals/2601-03%20Copyright%20in%20the%20AI%2 0Generative%20Era.pdf?utm_source=slw_edm&utm_medium=slw_edm_07Jan&utm_campaign=2026Jan-ap_jo-slw_edm-slw _edm_07Jan-slwcommentaries&utm_id=ap_jo> and other threshold questions that include whether or to what extent AI-generated content should benefit from copyright protection in the first place.⁶⁴Yuvaraj Joshua, “Does this unit even have a soul? AI -Generated Works, Creativity Research, and Copyright Policy” (2025) 37 SAcLJ 710 <https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Commentaries/SAL%20Journals/2512-03%20Does%20This%20Unit%20Have% 20a%20Soul.pdf?utm_source=slw_edm&utm_medium=slw_edm_29Dec&utm_campaign=2025Dec-ap_jo-slw_edm-slw_edm_ 29Dec-slwcommentaries&utm_id=ap_jo>

The Rise of Alternative Dispute Resolution options on IP in Singapore

Alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) options for IP disputes in Singapore include mediation and arbitration.

Key milestones in the IP mediation regime in Singapore include the launch of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in Singapore (“WIPO Center”) in 2010, the launch of the Mediation Option in 2012, the launch of the Mediation Promotion Scheme in 2016 (enhanced in 2019), and the launch of the Young IP Mediator Initiative in 2020.⁶⁵IPOS 20^th Anniversary Book at p 16 The Mediation Option promotes mediation to all parties in Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS”) proceedings and, following this, WIPO Center, Singapore International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”) and Singapore Mediation Centre (“SMC”) offer parties in IPOS proceedings special mediation packages.⁶⁶IPOS 20^th Anniversary Book at p 31 The Mediation Promotion Scheme was introduced in 2016 to encourage mediation by providing up to S$5,500 in funding for cases, with savings of up to 75% for successfully mediated cases.⁶⁷IPOS 20^th Anniversary Book at p 31. This was eventually revised in 2025 to provide for funding of up to S$8,000 per mediation case involving Singapore IP rights, and up to S$12,000 per mediation case if Singapore and foreign IP rights are involved.⁶⁸IPOS Website, Revised Enhanced Mediation Promotion Scheme (REMPS) (accessed 9 April 2026) at https://www.ipos.gov.sg/manage-ip/resources/for-enterprises/

In 2019, IPOS reached another milestone for IP dispute resolution in Singapore with the passing of the country’s first-ever IP (Dispute Resolution) (“IPDR”) Act. The Act provides certainty through amending the Arbitration Act that IP disputes can be arbitrated in Singapore, with arbitral awards affecting only parties to the arbitration instead of the world at large.⁶⁹IPOS 20th Anniversary Book at p 32 This is regardless of whether the intellectual property right (“IPR”) dispute is the main issue or an incidental issue in the arbitration.⁷⁰Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 (Act No. 23 of 2019) section 2 The IPDR Act clarifies that an IPR dispute includes a dispute over the enforceability, infringement, subsistence, validity, ownership, scope, duration or any other aspect of an IPR.⁷¹Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 (Act No. 23 of 2019) section 2. Furthermore, it clarifies that an IPR dispute is not incapable of settlement by arbitration only because a law of Singapore or elsewhere gives jurisdiction to decide the IPR dispute to a specified entity and does not mention the possibility of settlement of the IPR dispute by arbitration.⁷²Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Act 2019 (Act No. 23 of 2019) section 2. Singapore law (as the law of the seat) now applies the principle that even the issue of invalidity of an IP rights may be decided by an arbitration tribunal, and that such finding of validity (or otherwise) would just be binding on the parties to the arbitration. It clearly removes a previous obstacle to subject matter arbitrability.⁷³This critical development is consistent with the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 (“SIPS 2030”), which is the national strategy to

Regulators

Over the past decades, the IPOS and its predecessor has been central to policy administration and implemen-tation. Since its formation as a statutory board, the IPOS has been managing various levers of the IP ecosys-tem, beyond its traditional remit of administering the patent, trade mark, registered designs and plant varieties registration systems; advising the Government on areas of IP policy and legislation; and carrying out regula-tory functions over intellectual property agents.⁷⁴See Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act 2001 (Act 3 of 2001). See also Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (22 February 2001) Vol 72 at col 1457 (Ho Peng Kee, Minister of State for Law). As it celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, the IPOS is the frontline agency to facilitate and implement the objectives of SIPS 2030 (explained below).

SINGAPORE IP STRATEGY (“SIPS”) 2030

The SIPS 2030 was launched at the virtual World IP Day 2021 event hosted by the IPOS.⁷⁵“Singapore IP Strategy 2030 launched”, Allen & Gledhill <https://www.allenandgledhill.com/sg/publication/articles/18139/ip-strategy-2030-launched> SIPS 2030 is the national strategy to strengthen Singapore’s intangible asset / intellectual property (“IA/IP”) regime, enable enterprises to use their IA/IP more effectively, and create good job opportunities for Singaporeans.⁷⁶“Singapore IP Strategy (SIPS) 2030”, IPOS <https://www.ipos.gov.sg/global-ip-hub/singapore-ip-strategy-2030/>

Concluding Observations

In his response that was delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year 2026, the Honourable the Chief Justice notably said:

“In marking the Bicentennial, we commemorate a moment of signal importance in Singapore’s journey from humble beginnings within a colonial empire to a thriving city-state that shines as a standard-bearer for the rule of law and governance. We honour the devoted service of all who have made it their life’s work to build our legal and judicial system into what it is today: an institution of excellence and integrity that all of us – every judge, lawyer, and Singaporean – can be proud of and can call our own.”⁷⁷Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s Response delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year 2026, 12 January 2026 at (14).

Within Singapore’s larger legal system, the IP bar has also evolved in tandem with the proliferation of research and development, innovation, commerce and industrialization in Singapore. Indeed, members of the bar should certainly be proud to call it our own.